Skip to main content

Full text of "Proceedings of the sixth American Forest Congress /"

See other formats

Y4. F)q 8/1 * FtL/lr) 

94 o^ Congress j COMMITTEE PRINT 

2d Session 


Sponsored Under the Auspices of the American 

Forestry Association, October 6-8, 1975, 

in "Washington, D.C. 






St? . \^\ 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry 

67-054 WASHINGTON : 1976 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.90 
Stock Number 052-070-03298-7 

Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



Foreword m 

Summary of the Congress !_"___! vn 

Where are we? vn 

Implementation ix 

A challenge xn 

Proceedings of the Sixth American Forest Congress 1 

The need for an American forest policy — its basic elements 3 

National policy and goals 3 

National policy on national lands 7 

National policy on private lands 9 

Conclusion 11 

Statement of Hon. Mark O. Hatfield, before the American Forestry Asso- 
ciation—October 6, 1975 13 

Statement of Hon. Hubert H. Humphrey, before the American Forestry 

Association — October 7, 1975 18 

Our Nation's forests 23 

Citizens holds the key to public lands decisions 27 

To conserve and create 32 

Remarks by Russell W. Peterson, chairman, the President's Council on 

Environmental Quality 41 

Research and education 47 

Perspectives in world forestry 52 

Meeting needs for water, forage, and minerals 62 

Water 63 

Forage 64 

Minerals 66 

Meeting timber production needs 69 

U.S. forestry — A bicentennial redeclaration of independence 74 

Before you can practice forestry, you need the funds for forest prac- 
tices 77 

"If our environment is poor — we shall be poor" 80 

Resources for 300 million 81 

Forests and wildlife — inseparable natural assets 89 

Meeting recreational, park, and wilderness needs 96 

The present forest resource situation on industrial lands 101 

"Moving ahead together" 107 



[By R. Keith Arnold, Associate Dean of the LBJ School of Public Affairs, 
The University of Texas at Austin] 

A summary of this Sixth American Forest Congress may resemble 
a satellite weather picture on T.V. It presents the whole overview, 
highlights major storms, shows cloud and clear areas; but with that 
image alone, we cannot fathom the dynamics of the situation. In this 
focus on the mainstream of the Congress, I will try to avoid the eddies 
and minor crosscurrents. At the same time, though, we must identify 
the several major issues which together form the thrust we seek. 

As background for identifying major issues, we have discussed and 
analyzed during this meeting : 

1. A status report on forestry resources and practices ; 

2. A perspective of the role of forestry in the economic, environ- 
mental, and social well-being of mankind ; 

3. A review of the political realities of natural resources 
management ; 

4. An agenda for the future — the planks which comprise the 
AFA policy for the next decade. 

No Congress summary would be complete until it reviews our prog- 
ress, identifies the principal threads which must be woven together, 
and provides a transition and a forward look to "now what." 

Where Are We? 

Where are we at the close of this Congress ? It seems to me that first 
we share the enthusiasm of a century of progress and a sense of to- 
getherness in setting our sights for the coming years. Secondly, we 
understand the importance of our deliberations and know just how 
high are the stakes. Thirdly, we will, I believe, reflect with pride on 
our accompli shments. 

As we look at where we are, it is important that we review the ele- 
ments of our enthusiasm. We do share a genuine enthusiasm for a 
century of progress of the American Forestry Association — independ- 
ent, nonpolitical, truly broad-based and multidisciplinary, forward 
looking, and a leader in the development of sound policies and prac- 
tices for the management of the Nation's forest resources. Though not 
alone in its leadership role, the AFA has paced the development of 
forestry from its initial timely emphasis on tree planting through pro- 
grams on fire and pest control, timber production, watershed manage- 
ment, wildlife, and recreation to the current recognition of forest 
amenity values as coequal functions in planning alternatives and in 
management decisions. 

We further share enthusiasm for what I would call the "coming of 
age of forestry." Some might describe it as the second coming of con- 



servation; others might prefer ecosystem management. Still others 
may suggest conservation of the environment. In any event, we are 
talking about the interrelationships of all natural resources, the sec- 
ond broad grouping of planks in AFA's policy for the future. The 
focus is on interdependence — interdependence among natural re- 
sources — interdependence among economic, social, and environmental 
values — interdependence between industrial and environmental inter- 
est — interdependence between business and government — interdepend- 
ence between national and international policies. 

Interdependences stem from a few basic facts. Forests cover more 
than one-third of our land area and are intimately related to major life 
support processes of air, water, and soil formation. Furthermore, one 
cannot attack such national or international problems as energy, trans- 
portation, housing, food, and that ultimate and undefined goal, qual- 
ity of life, without considering forestry policies and practices. 

Forestry comes of age as these fundamental relationships are recog- 
nized and become increasingly important to man's life-style, if not his 
very existence on earth. All resources are in short supply from the 
world-wide view. Coal, oil, and gas are most critical to us now because 
they are exhaustible and not reusable. Most metals are also exhaustible 
but can be reused. In contrast, forest resources provide a wide variety 
of products which are renewable, reusable, and also biodegradable. To 
assure the inexhaustibility of forests, to achieve the potential of re- 
cycling, and to employ the capability of biodegradation — in effect to 
maximize sustainable yield of needed renewable resources — we need 
a level of investment, a level of understanding, and a level of manage- 
ment far above that of today. 

Forestry further comes of age with the progress of forestry science 
as emphasized by the AFA policy program on research. The very na- 
ture of the interdependences, coupled with the need for increased pro- 
duction, puts a high premium on knowledge of ecosystems we manage 
or preserve, on new studies of economic determinants of production 
and utilization systems, and on improved understanding of social needs 
and values. 

Another sign of the coming of age of forestiw is the professionalism 
required for its practice. Led by the 20,000 members of the Society of 
American Foresters, a wide variety of professionals and scientists pre- 
pare prescriptions for forest practices. For example, foresters join 
with landscape architects, engineers, and wildlife or fishery biologists 
to plan and carry out timber sales. Psychologists and sociologists par- 
ticipate in campground development and simulation models which are 
used to plan the protection and management of wilderness areas. For- 
estry policy analyses and management tasks require a broadly-based 
management expertise backed up by multidisciplinary professional 
and scientific specialists. 

With this review of elements of our enthusiasm for a century of 
progress, let's now look at our understanding of the importance of our 
deliberations at this Congress. Forests and forestry are international 
concerns. AFA's emphasis on world forestry is found in its introduc- 
tion to that subject. "Increasingly forests are recognized as a global 
resource transcending international boundaries . . . The forest is the 
world's most extensive undermanaged, renewable resource . . . Forest 
products of all kinds are playing a strong role in international trade 


. . . Forests are recognized as critical and integral elements of global 

We live in a world where starvation stalks; erosion proceeds un- 
abated ; air, water, and soil pollution accelerate ; and questions of man's 
survival are raised. We live in a world where technological change has 
outpaced our ability to cope with the results. In our world one billion 
people live on less than $75 a year. Somehow we in forestry must relate 
the hard investment and management decisions of industrialists, leg- 
islators, and administrators to international population restraints, 
human values, and social goals. In simplified fashion, I see three sets of 
decision limits for forestry — those dealing with economic deter- 
minants; those dealing with limits to biological productivity; those 
dealing with irreversible changes in ecosystems and irreversible loss of 
the use of genetic stocks by future generations. These limits must be 
on international as well as national bases. We can and must look for 
international areas of compatibility rather than of conflict. 


Enthusiasm and importance are the scissors which can provide the 
cutting edge of policy implementation. But pride of accomplishment 
must extend beyond a completed policy statement to successful action. 
If we achieve success to the end that forests with their renewable, re- 
usable, and biodegradable products adequately serve wordwide social 
and environmental needs, we are going to need more than more of the 
same. We can no longer only "do more" but still fall short of policy 
expectations that project maximum productivity. We can no longer 
look ahead in ten-year increments to a Seventh American Forest Con- 
gress and another chance. The preamble to the Centennial Program 
gives appropriate emphasis to the action phase. "It is imperative, 
therefore, that effective programs be implemented . . ." 

We do need more than accelerated investment in our renewable nat- 
ural resources. By "more than more" I refer to the necessity to inno- 
vate and institutionalize, and at this meeting we have identified six 
areas in which it is critical for innovation, institutionalization, and 
investment to occur if we are to approach maximization of production 
of renewable natural resources. These six areas are: 

1. The need for new economic, ecologic, and social data bases 
for forest policy analyses and decisions. 

2. The need for an order of magnitude increase in scientific 
knowledge about forestry systems. 

3. The need for new professional disciplinary interactions to 
match the requirements of interdependencies. 

4. The need for new involvement of citizens. 

5. The need for world leadership. 

6. The need for continuing policy analyses. 

Before we look at each of these six needs, let's consider the reasons 
for the necessity for innovation and institutionalization. Their themes 
have been played throughout the Congress and need only be mentioned 
in summary fashion here. 

Interrelationships {the first of these themes). — Forestry policies 
and decisions are made within the web of modern life and must be 
made in the full glare of publicit}^, the full knowledge of secondary 

and tertiary impacts, the full impact of unrestrained population 
growth — in fact to be a part of the big picture. 

Complexity. — Forestry policies and decisions apply to the most com- 
plex series of ecosystems known on the earth. Fred Smith, who formed 
and managed the ecosystems programs in the International Biological 
Program of the United States said it best: "Forests are the greatest 
achievement of ecological evolution — the largest, most complex, most 
self-perpetuating of all ecosystems. It is in forests that natural regu- 
latory processes excel, producing the most stable of all ecosytems. It 
is in forests that man has his best opportunity to work with nature. 
Development of this opportunity is the major challenge to foresters 
in an increasingly crowded and demanding world." 

Diversity. — Not only provides stability to ecosystems, it describes 
American forests which include some 300 ecosystems and over 100 
commercial timber species. Diversity precludes generalized manage- 
ment decisions. 

Time. — We can no longer substitute time for knowledge and employ 
trial-and-error methods. The "future is now" applies to forestry de- 
cisions even though forestry must of necessity be a long-run venture. 
The pace of change in economics, politics — particularly world poli- 
iics — and environmental requirements has eliminated the luxury of 
time we have had in the past to reach correct decisions through sue- 
cessive approximations. 

Future generations. — This is the most difficult theme of this meet- 
ing. Exhaustible resources will be exhausted — the critical questions 
are when and how much their exhaustion will be compensated by tech- 
nological change. But with renewable natural resources, we can better 
identify with future generations. Productivity in perpetuity is sound 
as a general goal but difficult to apply. We can and must increase pro- 
ductivity as dictated by physical and economic need of a growing 
world population. In terms of future environment, I agree with Bru- 
baker that the limits we face are: To avoid irreversible impacts on 
ecosystems, irretrievable loses of genetic stocks, and irreversible dam- 
age to large global systems. 

With the themes of interrelationships, complexity, diversity, time, 
and future generations in mind, let's turn to the first subject for inno- 
vation and institutionalization — the need for new economic, ecologic, 
and social data bases for forest policy analysis and decisions. The first 
innovative step has already been taken in the Forest and Eangeland 
Eenewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 which directs the Secre- 
tary of Agriculture to : 

". . . prepare a Eenewable Resources Assessment . . . the Assess- 
ment shall be prepared not later than December 31, 1975, and shall be 
updated during 1979 and each tenth year thereafter, and shall include 
but not .be limited to : 

• (1) an analysis of present and anticipated uses, demand for, 
and supply of the renewable resources of the forest, range, and 
other associated land with consideration of the international 
resource situation, and an emphasis of pertinent supply and de- 
mand and price relationship trends ; 

(2) an inventory, based on information developed by the Forest 
Service and other Federal agencies, of present and potential re- 
newable resources, and an evaluation of opportunities for improv- 
ing their yield of tangible and intangible goods and services . . .". 


This act, through expanding the traditional forest survey from com- 
mercial timber to recreation, wilderness, fish and wildlife, rangeland 
grazing, and water, reaches toward economic baselines. We need simi- 
lar innovative legislation to assure an adequate level of research for 
ecological and social baseline establishment. 

The second area is the need for an order of magnitude increase in 
scientific knowledge about forestry systems. Diversity and complexity 
dictate this necessity by indicating that there are no simple general 
solutions to forestry problems. Full knowledge of environmental im- 
pacts and effects of alternative action on related resources require 
basic information that now does not exist. Research is the only hope 
to invent Spurr's "complex unit to measure quality of life in integrated 
economic and social terms." Of utmost and immediate importance is 
to know short- and long-term ecosystem response to cultural and other 
management operations. 

The third area of innovation and institutionalization is the need 
for new professional and disciplinary interactions to solve the prob- 
lems of complexities and interrelationships. This is another way to 
stress that the forestry policy and management decision making 
process require the involvement of a wide mix of professions and 
scientific disciplines. 

The Society of American Foresters recognizes the importance of 
diverse professionals working together and includes in its membership 
scientists and professionals in fields closely allied to forestry who hold 
a bachelor or higher degree in their special field and who are render- 
ing or have rendered substantial service to forestry. 

An example of innovative institutionalization was the creation in 
1972 of the Renewable Natural Resources Foundation to facilitate 
coordination and cooperation among professional societies and or- 
ganizations having leadership responsibilities for renewable natural 
resources. Members include : American Fisheries Society, Society of 
American Foresters, Ecological Society of America, American Geo- 
physical Union, The Wildlife Society, American Association for Con- 
servation Information, American Water Resources Association, The 
Institute of Ecology, Association of Interpretive Naturalists, Ameri- 
can Association of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta, and Society for 
Range Management. This new Foundation has already purchased a 
35-acre estate near the Belt Way here in Washington so that these 
and other appropriate societies can headquarter and work more 
closely together. 

The fourth area is the need for new involvement of citizens. The 
United States, through its democratic processes, opinion polls, and 
public hearings, certainly leads in the involvement of citizens in the 
policy process. Informed public opinion as the key to successful policy 
development and implementation is a truism. It is here though that 
we in the forestry profession are reaping the harvests of past over- 
simplification of a highly complex and diverse situation. For how 
many decades did we publicize selection cutting and brag about the 
fact that we planted a tree for each one cut. Smokey Bear for years 
preached the text that "fire is bad" without distinguishing between 
wildfire and the use of fire as a tool. We not only require new educa- 
tional means of informing citizens on complex and diverse situations, 
but there needs to be a new coupling of public opinion and policy 


The fifth area, our stake in world affairs, is obvious. Since military 
and economic leadership are no longer paramount, we obviously must 
look for other ties to the world community of peoples. Forestry offers 
a great opportunity. Since forests cover one-third of the globe, de- 
veloping countries and developed countries have a clear common 
interest and can meet together on mutual problems. Both sides can 
learn from the other. Eenewable natural resources can play a strong- 
role in strategic policy through world trade and the fact that renew- 
able resources of cellulose can be stockpiled on the stump. Stockpiling, 
in a new and broad sense, can involve new governmental and non- 
governmental policies to encourage maximum, efficient production and 
to determine disposition of the production to meet national and inter- 
national needs. This suggests a balancing rather than regulatory role 
of government. 

The sixth and my last area is the need for continuing policy analysis 
in response to the criteria of time and interrelationships. The accelerat- 
ing momentum of change belies our ability to even describe the world 
as we know it today. We must invent something beyond periodic policy 
assessments. In the past they have been sufficient. In the present they 
are clearly inadequate ; and in the future, will be worthless. The Presi- 
dent/ s Advisory Panel on Timber and the Environment recognized this 
need in its recommendation for a national board or council on forest 
policy. Policy formulation is a continuing, complex, and comprehen- 
sive task which has been accomplished on an ad hoc basis up to now. At 
the close of this Sixth American Forest Congress, it is obvious to me 
and I believe to you, that Ave need something more. 

A Challenge 

I would like to close this summary with a challenge to the Ameri- 
can Forestry Association. I challenge it to do more of the same and 
more than more of the same. In terms of the first part of the chal- 
lenge, we expect no less than its continued pacing of forestry in the 
United States. Its one-hundred year history documents the success of 
its programs in education, policy formulation, citizen involvement, and 
a public forum for meshing divergent viewpoints. In terms of more 
than more, I would like to make three specific suggestions : 

1. The American Forestry Association should establish a con- 
tinuing forestry policy analysis form. It has the background, respect, 
and ability to so do. Though there are many possible formats, one can 
see a continuing forum of Federal administrators, industry leaders, 
conservation group leaders, educators, and citizens with the employ- 
ment of a small staff to critically assess emerging policies and review 
existing ones — in large measure to serve on a continuing basis to meet 
complexity, interrelationship, and time dimensions of our policy di- 
lemmas, just as the periodic congresses have been able to do in the past. 

The' Directors of the American Forestry Association took a first step 
at their centennial session last Sunday when they proposed that Con- 
gress establish a "Joint Study Committee to prepare a Policy for 
American Forestry" and update forest management statutes. If Con- 
gress or the Executive Branch do not act on this resolution, I believe 
that AFA must. Though an AFA Task Force or Commission may not 
have the clout of its recommended Joint Study Committee ; it has a 
track record which says that it can develop a contemporary rational 


policy for American Forestry and have that policy implemented 
through appropriate legislation. The Society of American Foresters 
will directly support either alternative action — but action there must 

In addition to the above immediate action, there are policy questions 
which must be addressed on a continuing basis. Some examples are : 
— What is an optimum mix of public and private capital for recrea- 
tion development ? What criteria should be used to help decide ? 
— Under which circumstances, if any, can wilderness be considered 
a renewable resource? What are the consequences for treating 
wilderness as renewable ? 
— What should be the role of Federal forests in meeting long-term 
renewable resource needs? Demonstration areas? Complementary 
to private lands, for providing non-market resources such as big 
game and large trees ? Strategic reserves for national emergencies % 
— Under the multiple-use concept, what criteria should we use to de- 
termine an optimum mix of resources? Efficiency, effectiveness, 
and panel-of -experts opinion, public reference polls ? 
— At what rate should the old-growth timber on the National Forests 
be liquidated? Should the non-declining even-flow policy be re- 
vised ? To what extent and how rapidly should expected changes 
in utilization be reflected in timber management plans ? What cri- 
teria should be used to establish the minimum size for a National 
Forest timber plan ? Should private lands be included in sustained- 
yield calculations? 
This list of questions is neither complete nor prioritized. The fact 
that they exist unanswered compels me to challenge AFA to proceed 
beyond this Sixth Forest Congress and provide a continuing policy 
analysis forum. 

2. My second challenge is that the American Forestry Association 
should establish new programs in citizen involvement. This problem 
is larger than AFA and certainly not limited to forestry. Nevertheless, 
it must be met head-on, and AFA through its momentum in the field 
of education should seek to invent new concepts and approaches. 

3. The American Forestry Association should accelerate its move 
into world forestry. Its weight has been felt at recent World Forestry 
Congresses, and its forestry trips to other countries headed by the late 
Ken Pomeroy have opened many doors. I see the opportunity to asso- 
ciate with similar organizations throughout the world and to use com- 
mon concern by citizens for the productivity and well-being of forests 
as a further thrust toward peace on earth. 

Sam Dana's foreword for "Crusade for Conservation — The Cen- 
tennial History of the American Forestry Association" provides a 
closing statement for this summary and a rallying cry to the challenge 
I have issued : 

The Association's history offers some guides as to how it can maintain its 
traditional position of leadership ; but the past is only prologue to the future. 
The next hundred years will present unforeseen problems and challenges which 
will require new philosophies and new programs of action. May the Association 
meet those challenges intelligently, courageously, and effectively. 



[By Stephen H. Spurr] 

It is difficult to say anything original at this moment in history about 
American forest policy. Our national concern with ecology and the 
environment took articulate form one hundred years ago — with spe- 
cific regard to preserving our existing forests, reforesting denuded 
land, and managing our forest to maximize the several goods and serv- 
ices, tangible and intangible, that derive therefrom. 

Here in 1976, when our national environmental concern is with air 
and water pollution, the litany about land and forest conservation 
is apt to seem all too familiar, even if true. Far from awakening a 
crusading response in our contemporaries, the reaction we are more 
likely to meet is either one of inattention or even of critical disbelief. 

While we who have been personally concerned with forest conserva- 
tion over the years have seen enormous strides toward forest man- 
agement for the continuous supply of timber and other products of the 
forests including livestock, game animals, fish, water, and human rec- 
reation, the unpleasant truth is that many of our contemporaries either 
don't believe that the intentions of our forest managers are pure, or 
that, even if they are, they know what they are doing. Much of the 
public equates foresters with wood butchers. A surprisingly large 
number are opposed to harvesting of trees at all. 

It is against this social and political background that we must take 
a fresh look at an American forest policy that has been evolved pain- 
stakingly over a century that has the support of the great majority 
of those intimately connected with forest conservation and that in- 
deed has accomplished much over years past. 

National Policy axd Goals 

The term policy, however, means a great many things. I choose to 
limit my interpretation of it in order to give direction to what other- 
wise may prove to be a flight into generalities. Let me start, therefore, 
with a definition of terms. 

Policy is a multi-meaning word. Some of its definitions are provoc- 
ative. I like the third part of the sixth definition in Merriam- Web- 
ster's third edition: policy is "the improved grounds (as parkland) 
of an estate or country house in Scotland," for example : "house stands 
in about 20 acres of well-wooded policies." That's what we are talk- 
ing about today ; "well- wooded policies." Only our task is not to land- 
scape a Scottish laird's domicile. It is rather to provide the American 
people with woodlands that not only provide amenity but also the 
goods and services that we and our economy need. In short, our con- 
cern is with forest policy. 


67-054—76 2 

Forest policies, however, don't exist in a vacuum. By American 
forest policies, I take it that we are referring to national policies of 
the United States of America, and that we use the term in its context 
of meaning "a definite course or method of action selected . . . from 
among alternatives and in the light of given conditions to guide and 
usually determine present and future decisions." 

But what are our national policies ? They are neither written down 
nor spelled out in any single set of documents. Politicians and experts 
disagree as to what they are. There is no consensus even as to what 
subjects they deal with. Rather, what our United States national poli- 
cies are must be inferred from acts of Congress in continuing or elim- 
inating old legislation and in posting new laws, and from actions of 
the President and his cabinet in interpreting and carrying their as- 
signed responsibilities. We can only assume that, over a period of 
time, such acts and actions reflect the will of the people. True, our 
policies are set as much by omission as by commission. True, our poli- 
cies will change over a period of time, sometimes rapidly but more 
often slowly. True, our policies will continue to be largely unwritten 
and inferred. Yet, we can divine to some extent what they are, and we 
can press for what they should be. 

Let me go back to the Merriam-Webster definition and remind you 
that a policy calls for a "definite course ... of action." This means 
that we are concerned with defining principles and recommending ac- 
tions that should be taken in the form of legislation by the U.S. Con- 
gress or in the form of order or regulation issued by the Executive 
Branch. There are lots of things that are thought to be inherently 
good, desirable, and worthwhile. Unless they should be affected by 
some specific action of the Federal government, though, policy issues 
are not raised. Some of us may think that large area clearcutting is 
acceptable ; others may condemn it as an evil. We should be concerned 
only to the extent of dealing with the question of whether the Federal 
government should officially intervene in the decision-making process. 
Only in such a context does clearcutting on private lands become a 
national policy issue. We may all agree that reforestation of under- 
utilized deforested land is a desirable aim on general principles. It 
is quite another matter, though, as to whether or not the Federal Gov- 
ernment should offer incentives to private forest landowners to en- 
courage them to plant trees, or indeed whether the government should 
require that forest lands must be maintained at a given level of pro- 
ductivity regardless of the economics of the individual case or of the 
objectives and wishes of the private landowner. These are the specific 
forest policy issues that must be treated. We all agree that logging in 
hilly or mountainous country will change the water regimen and pos- 
sibly affect the sediment load of streams that drain the area. The 
policy issue comes as we attempt to determine at what point on the 
water course and at what level of sedimentation do these matters be- 
come a matter of public concern, if ever. 

No matter what example we take, we come out with the same 
answer. An American forest policy must be specific and must deal 
with matters of national concern that merit consideration and action 
by the legislative and executive branches of the United States Govern- 

American forest policy must be viewed as a minor part of United 
States national policy in general. What is good for the country is not 
necessarily good for the forest, although I like to believe that what is 
good for the forest will prove in the long run to be good for the 
country. In any event, we are dealing with a small portion of what 
our Federal government is or ought to be planning and doing. We 
cannot disengage ourselves from the whole. U.S. policy on the im- 
port and pricing of petroleum will influence the possible use of wood 
as a source of energy and as a chemical feedstock. U.S. policy of log- 
ging public lands will affect the cost of housing and our national bal- 
ance of trade. National agricultural policies that determine the num- 
bers of grass-fed beef cattle will impact on grazing policies on public 
lands. Decisions that change the value of the dollar relative to foreign 
currencies will similarly change the recreational habits of American 
citizens and these in turn will change recreational pressures on our 
public lands. The Jones Act, in prohibiting the shipment of commodi- 
ties on foreign ships between U.S. ports, effectively bars Alaskan 
timber products from the contiguous 48 states, but this is a small part 
of the impact of this particular legislation on the American economy. 
The sale of logs from the Pacific Northwest to Japan looks bad to 
those who believe that old-growth forests should be maintained on the 
mountain slopes of Washington, but good to those who believe that 
full market access will permit the most responsible conversion from 
old growth to managed second growth. In short we in forestry are 
only part of the big picture and we had better take this into account 
in our effort to shape a national forest policy. We can't continue to 
concern ourselves only with forest policy, but as specialists in forestry 
and conservation, we should participate in the formulation of related 
national policies. 

It seems to me that our national policies are all pretty much directed 
toward two goals : one of economic well-being and the other of quality 
of life. These two courses are sometimes common and often parallel. 
Until recently it was often assumed that they were congruent. In- 
creasing population and social pressures coupled with decreasing 
food, energy and material resources have made it apparent that the 
two courses are becoming increasingly divergent. Therein lie the roots 
of our policy debate today. 

The goal of economic well-being is well understood. It is that we 
as a nation should have low unemployment, a high or at least a con- 
tinual growth in Gross National Product, and a low rate of inflation. 
It is that we as individuals should have incomes that increase faster 
dollarwise than the rate of devaluation of the dollar. Our forests are 
important in meeting these objectives in that they are our principal 
source of timber for lumber and plywood for housing and paper for 
communications. Plentiful wood at modest prices means moderately 
priced housing and cheap newspapers. Wood in short supply at high 
prices contributes significantly to shortages in housing and to overall 

As Americans have become more affluent, we have increasingly 
shifted our goals from the satisfaction of material wants to a con- 
cern for social injustices and to the development of cultural sensi- 
tivities. The goal of quality of life used to mean a chicken in every 

pot. Then, it implied two cars in every garage and a color television 
set in every living room. Recently, for many, it has meant leisure time 
and access to open spaces to spend it. Urbanity with its ghettos, subur- 
ban sprawl, transportation snafus, smoggy air, and dirty water in- 
creasingly represent the antithesis of quality of life, even for those 
with the two cars and the color television set. Our wildland parks 
and National Forests increasingly represent the thesis of quality of 
life, even for those with only a backpack and dehydrated pemmican. 

Multiple use in the broad sense is eminently practicable, Forests 
can be managed to grow trees for timber and simultaneously to satisfy 
most hunting, hiking, and camping activities. 

Both economic well-being and quality of life are desirable goals. 
Both can be satisfied to a considerable extent by our public and private 
forests in the largest sense. At a single place in the forest at a single 
point of time, however, the two goals are incompatible. The cutting 
of a single large tree supplies all-important wood to commerce but it 
is no longer there to be seen and enjoyed. Indeed, what remains in the 
form of logging slash is decidedly unattractive. The parallel does not 
exist for other natural resources, at least for the time-being. Coal and 
oil were not beautiful before harvest. Wheat and corn fields have a 
certain man-formed beauty that is destroyed by harvest, but we know 
that they will be there again in but a short season after harvest. Our 
emotional stress is o^er trees. Joyce Kilmer never wrote a poem about 
a coal seam. George Pope Morris never wrote : 

Farmer, spare that pea 

Touch not a single cow 

In my youth they nourished me 

And I'll protect them now. 

Our national forest policies therefore must be directed to move us as 
a national people toward the twin goals of economic well-being and 
quality of life. Our national government has direct responsibility 
for managing our public lands. Federal agencies manage the National 
Forests, National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and the public domain 
of the Bureau of Land Management and other public lands under 
legislative direction from Congress. The public here has a direct role 
in setting policy through its elected representatives and in seeing that 
its policies are carried out by its public servants. Our national govern- 
ment has much less to say about how private forest lands are managed. 
It is a continually evolving and still unsettled issue as to what is the 
appropriate concern of the public in how private land is used. 

For all our forest lands, we need to define and continually to up- 
date and redefine our national goals. We know pretty well what our 
population will be. We have a pretty good idea of what our economic 
status should be and how we'd like to see our quality of life improved. 
From these bases, we should be able to set national goals for, say the 
year 2000, for output from our forests by major products — water, 
aesthetics, recreation and wood. Having an idea of where we'd like 
to be going should help us in our efforts to move forward. The Presi- 
dent's Advisory Panel on Timber and the Environment was one step 
in this direction. The Humphrey-Rarick bill enables the Forest Serv- 
ice to move forward with the goal-setting and planning process. The 
policy statement proposed for adoption by this American Forest 
Congress provides valuable guidance. What remains to be done is to 

get down to specific goals and to develop policies that will enable us 
to reach them. 

Natioxal Policy ox National Laxds 

Let us examine national policies for national lands first. A number 
of Federal agencies manage forested lands under legislation and regu- 
lations peculiar to their individual status. Many BLM lands are simply 
leased to private users. National Parks are managed to preserve and 
provide access to areas of great scenic interest. The agency with the 
biggest and most controversial job is, however, the Forest Service. The 
simplest and most-inclusive policy governing the National Forests is 
The Multiple Use— Sustained Yield of 1960 which states : 

That it is the policy of the Congress that the national forests are established 
and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and 
wildlife and fish purposes .... The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized and 
directed to develop and administer the renewable surface resourcse of the na- 
tional forests for multiple use and sustained yield of the several products and 
services therefrom. 

We ma}' or may not quarrel with the Forest Service as to how this 
directive is interpreted and put into effect on the ground. Few of us 
would, however, disagree with the basic principle to such an extent 
that we should wish to repeal or seriously amend the legislation. 

What changes in our basic elements, then, are needed in American 
forest policy regarding our national public lands? Not a great deal, 
perhaps, in terms of general principles, but hopefully a continual im- 
provement in the details of application. Generalizing from the body 
of legislation and Federal management practice. I suggest that pro- 
posed new legislation in this area should be tested against the follow- 
in general principles. 

First, our public forest should be used for the balanced production 
of goods and services for the benefit of mankind. — Just as man is only 
a part of the earth ecosystem, so are the forests. They should not be 
considered in isolation or be locked up from human access and use. 
Forests should rather be managed for the good of mankind taking into 
consideration the need for economic returns and the need to maintain 
our woodlands as part of the world ecosystem. The task of balancing 
tangible and intangible returns from the forest, of weighing economic 
and social benefits from the forest in a single computational model, 
and the decision as to how to balance the various goods and services 
derived from the forest to maximize their benefit to mankind will 
always be complex and difficult and will require the greatest talents 
of the professional forester in their determination. Inevitably, when 
different approaches to a problem indicate incompatible courses of 
action, subjective judgment must prevail. Nonetheless, these are essen- 
tial management activities if we are to succeed in developing and in 
carrying out a satisfactory American forest policy. My own predilec- 
tion is not to use the dollar as the unit of measurement, for this will 
inevitably weight the decisions in terms of simple economic returns, 
but rather to seek to find some inevitably more complex unit to meas- 
ure quality of life in integrated economic and social terms. Only by so 
doing can we develop policies and reach management decisions th at- 
will give appropriate weight both to material goods and also to the 
intangible values and services that the forests provide. 

Second, our national forests should continue to he managed as a 
renewable natural resource. — This is a proposition that may not always 
be economically defensible but which has in effect been established as 
policy by the several actions of the agents of the people of the United 
States. All seem to agree that the flow of materials and other goods 
from the forest should be reasonably balanced over a more or less 
clearly defined geographical area and over a moderate span of years. 

We cannot know the future although the past and the present 
undoubtedly provide clues to it. We must take care that we do not 
construe too narrowly what we must produce to be willed to our heirs. 
We cannot, for instance, know the species and the size classes of trees 
that will be needed in the 21st century. We can predict with absolute 
certainty, though, that man will be much more populous and con- 
sequently will require substantially larger quantities of organic ma- 
terial photosynthesized by trees and other primary producers. This 
is why I have couched my statement in ecological rather than in 
economic terms. 

Becoming more specific, the concept of forests as renewable natural 
resources follows logically from the basic assumption that a balanced 
man-forest ecosystem must be attained and maintained. It does not 
follow, however, that each and every piece of forest must be managed 
to these rigid objectives. Within the overall S} T stem, there must be 
constant adjustments to maintain the balance under changing 

Wlrile it is desirable to develop maximum flexibility in order to 
facilitate this balancing, it may well be that some forests will be over- 
cut while others will be undercut in a given period of time ; that some 
forests will be liquidated while other forests will be withdrawn from 
exploitive use ; and that some forests will be used for many purposes 
while others will be restricted insofar as man's involvement is 

In short, I do not argue for the arbitrary enforcement of sustained 
yield practices for small areas on a non-declining even-flow annual 
basis. Such a rigid approach may well prove to be unnecessarily restric- 
tive. I do hold that, if we are truly committed to managing the forests 
as a renewable natural resource, then it is essential that we define our 
units of management at some larger level of integration and our period 
of planning at some reasonable span of years, and that we insist upon 
a continuous high level of production of goods and services for the 
defined area and span of time. 

Third, a national forest policy must involve the development and 
application of sound economic criteria for the management of our 
public forests. — I have already indicated some of the factors that must 
be considered, such as the definition of the management unit, and the 
measurement of goods and services in terms of quality of life rather 
than in terms of the dollar. Nevertheless, the skills and tools of the 
economist must be brought to bear if we are to have a satisfactorv and 
adequate American forest policy. Intensive management of our forest 
resources is highly desirable from many points of view, but its practice 
must inevitably be limited bv economic restraints. 

Fourth, vrivision should be made for professional management of 
forests under guidelines of established poliry. — It is the appropriate 
role of policy bodies, both governmental offices and national associa- 


tions such as the American Forestry Association, to instigate and 
promulgate national forest policies. It should fall to the professional, 
however, to put these policies into effect, drawing upon highly special- 
ized technical skills in many fields of endeavor to introduce forest 
practices that will meet the general policy considerations and yet be 
practicable and effective under the specific conditions encountered. For 
example, it is clearly inappropriate to have a national forest policy on 
specific silvicultural practices such as clearcutting or the use of fire. 
Rather the objectives of public forest management should be spelled 
out, leaving the professional forester on the job the right and the re- 
sponsibility of utilizing all of the tools at his disposal as long as they 
are not dangerous either to mankind or to the ecosystem in which he 

Fifth, the Forest Service and other major land-managing public 
agencies should be provided tuith legal and fiscal opportunities to man- 
age forest lands, to improve their productivity, to harvest timber there- 
from, and to provide other desired benefits. — In order that our public 
forest lands be well managed, the responsible agencies must have the 
trained professional manpower available with the funding and 
authority to practice their professions. 

Alternatives to present methods of computation of allowable cut 
should be assayed in terms of better long-term planning for the wise use 
of our public timber. Alternatives to present timber sale procedures 
should be legalized and tried with the objective of providing for better 
environmental protection of the logging sites at the same time that 
complete and profitable utilization of the timber is encouraged. Exist- 
ing forests should be adequately protected against fire, insects, disease, 
and, above all, from man himself. Regular funding on a long-range 
basis should be provided to ensure that lands that are planned to be 
forested are indeed fully stocked with trees. Our national agencies that 
managed forest lands have by and large done a good job with the re- 
sources at their disposal. They should be encouraged to do a better job 
in the future by being given the requisite manpower, funding, and 

I take my sixth principle directly from the Report of the Presidents 
Advisory Panel on Timber and Environment. The Federal land-ad- 
ministering agencies and the Congress should accelerate their efforts to 
complete the National Wilderness Preservation System as rapidly as 
possible. The Federal land-managing agencies and the Congress should 
develop a system of quasi-wilderness areas in the Eastern United States 
in which low-intensity outdoor recreation will be possible under natural 
forest conditions. Commercial forest lands not withdrawn for wilder- 
ness or other specific uses should be available for commercial timber 
production among other compatible uses and should be managed in 
accordance with appropriate national policies. 

National Policy ox Private Laxds 

Most of us would, I think, subscribe to the general principle that the 
less public regulation of private affairs, the better. The continuing de- 
bate is over the issue of how much is "less." From examination of recent 
environmental legislation, we can make some generalizations about the 
principles underlying American forest policy toward private land as 
it has evolved from our present body of law. 


m First, a word about owning land. Individuals claim ownership by a 
title conferred by the government. Historically, the title conveys only 
limited rights. Surface rights are often more clearly defined than aerial 
or subterranean rights. Frequently the rights are separated and held by 
differing people. In Texas, one may own the surface rights, another 
the mineral rights, and a third the water rights— and often the latter 
two are more valuable than the first. Furthermore, what the govern- 
ment giveth, the government can take away. Expropriation, eminent 
domain, and more subtle forms of action can all alienate an owner from 
his land. The fact is that no one of us owns land outright and without 
qualification. What the owner really has is a right to limited use of a 
piece of the earth's surface and an even more limited use to the air 
above it and the ground beneath it. 

Our rights of private ownership are limited in two general ways. 

First, and there is general recognition in the law to this, no in- 
dividual owner has the right to so manage his property as to adversely 
affect adjoining landowners or indeed, any other person. The body of 
legislation and regulation on air pollution and water pollution speak 
to this principle. In the area of land pollution, legislation is less de- 
veloped. Certainly, though, we should not discharge waste that would 
lower the productivity or value of a neighbor's land. It would follow 
that we should not construct logging roads so carelessly that the erod- 
ing sediment would seriously damage the land of the owner next 
downstream. If there isn't a law against it, there should be. On the con- 
structive side, land-use planning is a rapidly developing device de- 
signed to protect the property values of individuals by insuring that 
all lands are developed compatibly. 

The second limitation is embodied in the growing concept that we 
as landowners are acting as trustees for future-generations and that 
we can and should be held legally responsible for so managing our 
property that we turn it over to our successors in as productive a 
condition as when we acquired it. The legal term for this is the right 
of usufruct, meaning that we may use the land as we will but only so 
far as we do not damage it or destroy it. The prime example of this 
principle currently before us is the proposed federal control of surface 
or strip mining. The majority of our Congress believe land reclama- 
tion after such mining to be in the public interest, not because strip 
mining may be a public nuisance but because it is thought that we have 
the responsibility of turning our land over to our children in good 
condition. Efforts to regulate forest practices on private forest land 
provide another example of this principle. High-grading a forest or 
falling to regenerate it after clearcutting may affect no private individ- 
ual but the owner ; yet, the argument is that there is still a long-term 
public interest that justifies governmental intervention. 

For what it's worth, my instinct is to agree that private landholders 
have an obligation to so treat their lands as to maintain its quality 
and productivity, but that the level of management above that is their 
choice. In other words, the public interest is sufficient that the Federal 
government should make it unlawful to degrade the site, or to damage 
the ecosystem beyond the point when it can recover. 

To the extent that it is considered desirable from the national point- 
of-view to encourage forest management on private lands, this should 
bo accomplished through incentives rather than through regulation. 
There are many ways to approach this problem, some of them of 


proven effectiveness and others that have been less than useful in the 
past. The proposed Centennial program for the American Forestry 
Association treats thoughtfully and wisely with the various aspects of 
public assistance to landowners and processors : education and public 
service, direct incentives, credit, insurance, and taxation. The Presi- 
dent's Advisory Panel on Timber and the Environment has provided 
a useful critique of past experiences as well as innovative suggestions 
that deserve study and trial. There is much to be learned and incentive 
to proceed. 

I submit that it should be our national policy to keep substantial 
areas of our commercial forest lands fully stocked, adequately pro- 
tected and productive. This was the theme of the first American Forest 
Congress in 1882 and indeed was perhaps the principal tenet of the 
American forestry movement during the last half of the nineteenth 
century and the first quarter of the twentieth as the Clark-McXary 
Act testifies. Reforestation or afforestation may not always be finan- 
cially justified from the standpoint of the small landowner or from 
the standpoint of economic analysis of a single isolated piece of land. 
When the unit of management concern is considered to be the nation 
as a whole, it follows that, if we are committed to managing the forests 
as a renewable natural resource, then we have a national responsibility 
for leaving forest lands fully stocked and productive. 

By extension, this also means that it should be national forest policy 
to provide incentives or to otherwise subsidize the reforestation of 
those privately owned lands which from the standpoint of national 
policy should be in forests but which are uneconomical to reforest 
under the restraints imposed by existing conditions of private 


As an educator and a research scientist. I cannot conclude without 
belaboring the obvious and putting in a plug for a vigorous and 
on-going program of both forest research and conservation education. 
In the former realm, both mission or problem-oriented research and 
basic research must be maintained. Investigations should be carried 
out at all levels ranging from the basic biochemistry and biophysics 
of living cells to the social and ecological considerations of human 
society and of the larger ecosystem in which man lives and operates. 
We must have vigorous programs studying not only the problems of 
tomorrow and of the next decade but of the next century and indeed 
of the indefinite future — for the latter will come far sooner than we 
anticipate. A major responsibility for such a program has long been 
primarily undertaken by the Forest Service. Universities and industry 
also have major roles to play. Our research programs dealing with 
forest problems should be continued and enhanced. 

A sound program of education in forestry must operate at all levels 
through specialized but non-professional training in our colleges and 
universities to highly professionalized training in forestry, affiliated 
professions and in research in forest science of the highest order. 

To conclude, it is not my part todav to go into detail into the pro- 
nosed Centennial Program for the American Forestry Association. 
It is a carefully conceived, well-worded and sound proposed policy. 
It has my support. It is, I believe, harmonious with the basic principles 


that I have suggested must form the basis for any American forest 
policy statement. 

Over the past century we have made great progress in American 
forestry. We have by and large closed out the era of cut-out and get-out 
logging. We have generally stopped the uneconomic conversion of 
forested land to submarginal farm land. We have come close to stabi- 
lizing the proportion of our land surface devoted to commercial forests. 
We have preserved significant parts of the forest landscape. We have 
begun to increase the productive capacity of the American forests 
through better management widely applied by forest industries and 
public agencies. 

We have done much but much remains to be done. Demands for 
human use of our wild and forested lands will increase with an in- 
creasing population. So will our need for timber for housing, com- 
munications, and other uses. The basic resources in the form of forests 
are there. The capability exists for managing them to meet a substan- 
tial level of expanding future needs. Our American forest policy 
should be addressed toward reaching this goal. 


[By Mark O. Hatfield, a U.S. Senator from Oregon J 

One of the most frustrating aspects of a government which is too 
large and too centralized is that it seems to take a serious crisis to 
get it to act — and too often it merely reacts to the immediate crisis 
rather than responding to and dealing with the real root problem. 
The energy crisis is an example of the phenomenon. Long gasoline 
lines at the neighborhood service stations were commonplace before the 
government reacted — and it still has not responded. We must draw the 
important distinction between a reaction and a response — a reaction 
involves the "quick-fix" treatment of the symptoms, while a real re- 
sponse involves a look at the underlying problems and solutions to 
them. The saying that the President has one energy plan, the Congress 
has 535 and the nation has none is a tragic and well-worn joke, but it 
is descriptive of the present situation. 

There is no question but that our energy resource problems needed 
attention long ago, but there were always other pressing issues — such 
as the Vietnam war, or civil rights — all important, all crises demanding 
attention and getting it. And when energy became a crisis it also took 
the nation's attention. 

Another resource issue has been festering for years, one that all of us 
here are familiar with, and I am not being facetious when I say that 
here, too, we face the very real prospect of a major resource crisis. 
The health of National Forest management has been at best dubi- 
ous for a long, long time. Created to "furnish a continuous supply of 
timber for the use and necessities of the citizens of the United States," 
as stated by the Organic Act of 1897, and to be administered "for out- 
door recreation, range, timber, watershed and wildlife and fish pur- 
poses," as mandated in the Multiple Use — Sustained Yield Act of 1960, 
we as a nation have simply failed to do the quality job of forest man- 
agement we ought to be doing. 

While problems have surfaced periodically — relating to timber 
supply, wilderness or recreation, the reaction has been consistently 
insufficient and can be summarized in two words : study it. 

In March 1969, the Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Af- 
fairs of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency held 
hearings and reported on softwood timber supply and price prob- 
lems as they were affecting the housing program. 

In June of 1970, the Public Land Law Review Commission 
issued its report to the President and the Congress on the reten- 
tion and management or disposition of federal lands, which equal 
one-third of the nation's land mass. 

On June 19, 1970, Robert P. Mayo, formerly director of the 
Bureau of the Budget, reported for the Cabinet Committee on 



Economic Policy the findings and recommendations of the White 
House Task Force on Softwood Lumber and Plywood. 

In March of 1973, a White House Timber Sale Task Force under 
Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz was formed to study continu- 
ing increases in softwood lumber and plywood prices. 

In June of 1973, the National Commission on Materials Policy 
issued its report on timber supply problems. ' 

The long-awaited report by the President's Advisoiy Panel on 
Timber and the Environment was issued last year. 
All of these studies have concluded that the timber-growing po- 
tential of the National Forests must be developed more fully to meet 
future demands for forest products and for wilderness and recreation. 
All indicate that timber yield can be increased while benefitting the 

The General Accounting Office — the watchdog of the Congress — 
has concluded that through stepped-up reforestation and timber stand 
improvement efforts, the timber yield on the National Forests could 
be increased by 94 percent per acre. 

Yet, with this plethora of studies, we still see some 3.3 million acres 
on the National Forests in need of reforestation. We still see what can 
only be called second-rate management of the public resources. 

And the fact that we are failing to deal with our demand for addi- 
tional timber does not mean that we are meeting recreation or wilder- 
ness needs. The Forest Service presently shows a backlog in camp- 
ground maintenance and rehabilitation of over $38 million. When we 
are growing less timber than we should be, each acre taken out of 
production becomes more critical, so that there is often a reluctance 
to designate unique, alpine areas as wilderness. All users of the Forests 
lose when they are improperly managed, and this is the present case 
on the National Forests. 

The reason for this is not so much the fault of the Forest Service 
itself as with its place in the federal bureaucracy and the general fail- 
ure of that bureaucracy to understand the nature of natural resources. 
The Forest Service — responsible for the stewardship of 187 million 
acres of land — is located within the Department of Agriculture. And 
Secretaries of Agriculture have not been noted for their knowledge 
of or interest in forestry. 

This difficulty at the departmental level is exacerbated by an Office 
of Management and Budget which has been deaf to the logic of invest- 
ing in the public lands now for a return in future years. 

In past years, when funds appropriated by a S3anpathetic Congress 
for reforestation and other forest programs could be impounded — they 
were. Even last year, with impoundment authority sharply limited by 
a new law, OMB caused a delay in the expenditure of reforestation 
funds which may have cost us a year in the reforestation effort. OMB 
has had almost dictatorial control over programs it knows nothing 

In addition to these institutional difficulties, the Forest Service has 
been caught in the middle of a controversy which ranges from the 
"cut and run" philosophies of the old timber barons to proponents of 
a philosophy which ignores any sort of scientific approach to forestry. 
Each side has been caught up in major battles over the use of specific 
areas, losing sight of the broad policy issues. Each has viewed the other 


as having the most evil of intentions, while it alone has the public 
interest at heart. The result has been that there has been no clear con- 
sensus to guide the Forest Service except that each group wants more — 
more wilderness, more recreation, more timber. 

Yet, in spite of these difficulties, there has been a large measure of 
progress in the past few years. Congress has been asserting its authority 
over the budget, limiting the executive's ability to impound Congres- 
sionally authorized and appropriated funds. Those of us on the Ap- 
propriations Committees of the Congress have been successful thus 
far in putting the Forest Service on a 10 year program to eliminate 
the backlog of lands in need of reforestation. An "areas of agreement" 
coalition, sponsored by AFA, has worked together — representing all 
forest user groups — to propose a balanced budget for the Forest 

The Forest and Kangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act — 
introduced by Senator Humphrey — has been enacted. This legislation 
calls for long term planning to insure the nation of an adequate 
supply of forest resources in the future. Under the bill, the Adminis- 
tration must also develop budget proposals to meet our long term 
goals. We don't have enough experience with the Act to know just 
how effective it will be, but it does offer real promise. 

All of these steps, however, will be only superficial if the recent 
decision of the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals becomes the effec- 
tive law of the land. Each of the problems I have outlined pales in 
comparison with the one which is now taking form. It may be more 
than just another problem, but a real crisis in resource management 
and availability. 

It is becoming clear that we have based entirely too many assump- 
tions on what may be a very shaky foundation — the Organic Act of 
1897. Enacted 78 years ago, when the practice of forestry and the state 
of the public lands were very different from today, this legislation 
established the management authority for the National Forests. The 
Act held that "No national forest shall be established, except to 
improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the pur- 
pose of securing favorable conditions of water flow, and to furnish 
a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens 
of the United States." 

Ironically, if the court's decision stands, it is this Organic Act 
which will precipitate the crisis in forestry. While commonly referred 
to as the Monongahela or "clearcutting" decision, its impact could 
go much further than the boundaries of West Virginia's Monongahela 
National Forest or the practice of clearcutting. The court held that 
only "dead, physiologically matured, and large growth trees" 
may be sold. All trees to be sold must be individually marked. This 
prescription limits severely the uses of many important modern silvi- 
cultural practices. 

At present, the decision applies to West Virginia, Virginia, North 
Carolina and South Carolina. Timber sales, which were cancelled 
after the decision, were resumed a few days ago, but at the rate of 
only 30 million board feet for the balance of the fiscal year, as com- 
pared with 285 million board feet which would have been sold during 
this period. This is a reduction of nearly 90 percent. 


I am not a lawyer, and cannot make judgments about the possi- 
bility of an appeal, but as a layman it seems likely that the impact 
of the court's decision could spread to other areas of the nation, where 
similar cases are already pending, thereby creating a far more serious 
lumber shortage than any in recent history. 

This sort of crisis would bring about a governmental reaction, but 
not necessarily a good one. With the supply of timber from National 
Forests drastically reduced for a period of time, pressures to increase 
it might bring about a higher level of cutting than can be justified 
by present reforestation efforts. Or the shortage could drive us to 
increasing dependence upon lumber imports or the so-called substi- 
tutes for lumber in housing. 

These substitutes all entail very high environmental and energy 
costs. Production of aluminum is tremendously energy-consumptive: 
29,860 BTU's are necessary to produce one pound of aluminum. Min- 
ing and the reduction wastes have large environmental impacts and 
deplete finite resources. Concrete is just a step down from aluminum 
in magnitude of energy consumption and also uses non-renewable 

In addition to heavy power requirements, the synthesis of plastics 
releases into the environment a wide variety of reagents and inter- 
mediates which are foreign to natural ecosystems, often toxic and 
accumulate in the environment. Ecologically, the synthetic polymers 
are literally indestructible, and therefore generate important, often 
poorly understood, environmental impacts. 

To state a very obvious point, we can no longer afford the luxury 
of extravagance in energy consumption. 

Ecologically speaking, wood is clearly the most desirable material 
to use to meet our housing needs. The energy utilized in growing 
trees is solar — free of charge. With sound forest practices, there is 
little strain on the environment. Wood is organic and biodegradable — 
it returns to the soil as part of the natural cycle. Wood is a renewable 

If the court's decision stands, we cannot be sure of how the govern- 
ment will react — we can only be sure that when the housing material 
shortages reach crisis proportions, the programs of the Congress and 
the Administration to stimulate homebuilding will be meaningless. 
Pressures from the homebuying public, from those involved in the 
construction and forest products industries, will force the government 
to react, but there may not be a sound response to the overall problem. 

We must develop legislation now to deal with the potential prob- 
lems of the Monongahela on a temporary basis, but we must realize 
that it will only be for the short term and it will not be an adequate 
response. Such legislation should not be prescriptive as it relates 
to forestry silviculture practices — different tools must be used for 
different situations. 

• Guidelines developed over three years ago by the Senate Public 
Lands Subcommittee are presently being utilized by the Forest Serv- 
ice to insure that clearcutting is properly used — a legislative prescrip- 
tion discussed by some of my colleagues might be fine for a particular 
forest or a particular species, but totally inappropriate for other areas 
of the country. We cannot legislate biological growth factors. 


While temporary legislation can deal with the immediate problem, 
we must also develop comprehensive legislation which responds to 
the many serious problems we have in managing our forests. The 
elements of a true response must include a financing mechanism. 

In 1971, I proposed the American Forestry Act, a bill aimed at re- 
forestation of both the public lands and the small, nonindustrial lands. 
Field hearings were conducted in the South, the West and the North- 
east. The bill aroused opposition in some quarters because it would 
have utilized receipts from timber sales to finance forest manage- 
ment activities. The logic of its critics was that this would provide 
a built-in incentive to cut more, perhaps without the necessary steps 
to protect the resource. This was not my goal — and we have safe- 
guards to prevent this from happening, but there may be other alter- 
natives which do not evoke this fear. 

Last year, for example, the Congress enacted legislation to put the 
Bonneville Power Administration in the Pacific Northwest on a self- 
financing basis by authorizing it to issue and sell revenue bonds and 
revenues from power sold to pay off the bonds. Such a system could 
be developed for the Forest Service which would allow the agency 
to move ahead with a major reforestation and timber stand improve- 
ment effort. 

It is also time to include a new statutory land classification in the 
options of forest managers. At present, in the eyes of many, we have 
either multiple use lands or wilderness. Other classifications are de- 
veloped on a piecemeal, ad hoc basis. The battle lines have already been 
drawn around many areas which deserve protection but may not 
qualify for wilderness designation and may require more in terms of 
land management than is authorized under the wilderness act. 

I would, therefore, propose a statutory back country designation to 
include land without permanent public roads, which can be reached 
primarily by trails, which possesses unique recreational values. It 
would be managed for a near-primitive recreational experience. This 
designation would allow some of the basic amenities desired by many of 
the National Forest users including more intensive trail signing, toilets, 
shelters, and water systems. Steps could be taken to deal with diseased 
timber or insect infestations. Limited timber sales by helicopter, bal- 
loon, or other unconventional methods. Back country could be managed 
to handle the people and would relieve pressures on wilderness, which 
can be damaged by overuse. 

This same comprehensive legislation ought to correct some of the de- 
ficiencies in present laws, including the language in the wilderness act 
which permits mining. 

This is the other way we could respond to the challenge posed by the 
Monongahela — seizing it as an opportunity for creative action. 

Gifford Pinchot, the first Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, wrote that 
"The rightful use and purpose of our natural resources is to make all 
the people strong and well, able and wise, well-taught, well-fed, well- 
clothed, well-housed, full of knowledge and initiative, with equal 
opportunity for all and special privilege for none." 

If we do any less than move now to affirm these principles, we will be 
inviting a forestry crisis of mammoth proportions. 



[By Hubert H. Humphrey, a U.S. Senator from Minnesota] 

When the first Congress of the United States met, our Xation had 
barely 3.9 million people. And the forest was viewed as a barrier to 
development. Exploiting it was a challenge. 

When in September 1875 the American Forestry Association was 
formed in Chicago under the leadership of that outstanding physician- 
conservationist, Dr. John Warder, the effects of a century of wasteful 
exploitation of our forest were becoming all to clear. 

Credit also should go to the American Association for the Advance- 
ment of Science and to the huge cross-section of interested citizens for 
alerting the American people to the need for the conservation of our 
renewable resources. 

I am here today as a citizen with long and deep interests in the 
relation between our spiritual and economic well being and the condi- 
tion of our natural and human resources. 

I am a conservationist, and proud to be one. 

I also am a professional policymaker — a politician if you wish — 
one of 100 Senators selected by the voters to translate ideas into 
national policies. 

I am a politician who believes that there is an evolution of policy 
just as there is for the plants and animals. I believe we must try to 
improve things, while being willing to examine what is evolving. 

I also believe very strongly that we should bring people and ideas 
together in this evolutionary process. I am a Democrat in political 
philosophy — a member of the Party that believes that an elected gov- 
ernment is the peoples' way of fashioning and achieving those goals. 

Today let us talk about the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Re- 
sources ^Planning Act of 1974. This Act, which I helped initiate, is 
dedicated to the principle of policy evolution. It seeks to address the 
situation on some 700 million acres of range and grass lands and some 
700 million acres of forested lands — two-thirds of the 2.2 billion 
acres in our United States. 

It gives us as a nation the ways and means to shape the destiny 
of our land by helping determine the way we address the issue of our 
renewable resources. 

The Act provides the means to assess regularly our renewable re- 
sources — including soil, water, forest and range plants, animals, fish, 
birds and even the insects. 

It then provides the vehicle for focusing public policy decisions on 
these 1.4 million acres. 



What for example, should be the role of the private land owner as 
well as the Federal, State and local governments i 

Another important concept imbedded in the bill is flexibility. In this 
Act we recognized the inevitability of change and provided the basis 
for developing improved information on which to gear policies and 

We tried to create the machinery that gives us facts so that the fear 
and uncertainty of change is reduced. And we sought to avoid being 
caught up by events because we were not looking at what was hap- 
pening around us. 

In this Act we also tried to keep the range of actions within manage- 
able proportions. The Act, recognizes the pivotal role the Department 
of Agriculture and its Forest Service play in administering forest 
and range lands, and in aiding the private sector management of 
similar lands. 

It is one thing to recognize that there is a governmental role, but 
is quite another to be able to respond. A major challenge that we face 
as a people and as a Nation is to improve our ability to come to grips 
with issues. 

Today, with well over 200 million people in the United States, deci- 
sion making and policy formulation are far more complex than when 
Ave had but i million people in our new Xation. 

When the AFA was founded, I am told you had perhaps 35 mem- 
bers. They looked at the resource situation, as they saw it, and they 
hammered out a policy and a program which was a good one. Today 
you have 80,000 members. 

AFA is an excellent example, of how the coming together of a 
group of people — who are willing to get the facts and bring them to 
the attention of their fellow-citizens — helped focus on the issues and 
identify the needs. 

The whole system of renewable resource conservation still rests on 
the foundations that this small band of pioneers helped to design. 
When they began, lumbermen thought that forest management on a 
scientific basis was pure folly. 

Fire protection was viewed as perhaps useful for mature timber lest 
it be burned up before it was cut down. The public forest — whether 
Federal or State was regarded as a public picking ground. The best 
thing that could happen was to get rid of the trees and convert the 
land to a farm. 

The range lands of the United States were the battlegrounds of the 
homesteader and the cattleman. The only question was whether the sod 
would be broken by the plow or by the thousands of cattle and sheep 
that ranged across the grasslands. 

I do not suggest that all that happened was bad, either in outcome 
or in motivation. But the record is clear that the 35 original members 
of your association were forward-looking. They said that if man 
uses the renewable resources wisely, they will help man sustain himself 
in perpetuity. 

Xow, 100 years later, we have a much clearer understanding of the 
fundament ai truth of this fact. 

This past century has been one of major change. Oil and the in- 
ternal combustion engine — both reliant on non-renewable resources — 
have worked changes on our whole way of life. 

67-0.j4— 76 3 


I am sure that when the first meeting of AFA was held in 1875, a 
number of your members came on a passenger train whose engine 
equaled 500 horses. Some probably came via "one-horse power" — a 
horse, pulling a ^Democrat" — the popular two seater shay of the day. 

For your meeting here today some came by 727 — a jet powered by 
the equivalent of about 9,000 horses. A few probably came by train 
pulled by 4,000 horses, and many came by car with a 200 to 300 horse 
power engine. 

Our use of energy these past few decades has been as profligate as 
our use of wood used to be. When your organization first assembled 
in Chicago, many of the city streets were cobbled with wood paving 
blocks. And the rails the trains ran on were ties of now prized and 
expensive hardwood lumber. 

It is clear that the energy events of the past few years are going to 
change how we view and how we use the forest resources. 

America's forests and rangelands are assuming new and larger 
importance. We are learning to work with nature, but time is not on 
our side. 

We have learned that some resources are renewable. They can be 
husbanded or used again and again if not abused. 

We know that we have a massive job of reclamation on both forest 
and range land in order to restore the vigor and quality of their 

We have learned that the forest and the range have many resources 
and their uses can be multiple. 

And we have learned that there is a value to the quality of wildness. 

In addition, we have learned to respect Nature — there are ecological 
interconnections that we must work with, not against. 

In January, 1976, we are going to test ourselves on how to apply 
what we have learned. Under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
Resources Planning Act, this process already is well under way. 

The Department of Agricuture now has in circulation for public 
study the raw material that every interested citizen is asked to study. 
In fact, the law — which provides the rules for this test — requires you 
as citizens to contribute to the body of facts and to the proposals. 

In January you will be asked to come forward and tell the Congress 
whether or not all of the relevant facts are there and whether they are 
comprehensively displayed. You will be asked in the second part of 
that test either to pick what you think is the best course, with your 
reasons, or to suggest other alternatives and back them up with 

And further, you will be asked to help us in the Congress to select 
the best course to chart for the years immediately ahead. 

In this unique and comprehensive test, we in the Congress will 
likewise be examined on our ability to carry out our responsibilities 
under this new law. 

We will be evaluating your ideas and measuring them against the 
proposals of the Executive. And, you will have an opportunity to 
examine the answers we give. 

This legislation was the product of many people working together 
with diverse views. I am confident that when AFA decided to support 
this legislation, it did so with the understanding that it was making 
a commitment for its 80,000 members to work actively and continuously 
toward the improvement of our renewable resources. 


This law is not a one-time thing: It provides that annually we can 
adjust our sights, and that each 5 years we can substantially overhaul 
our priorities and program. Every 10 years we will have a new com- 
prehensive resource assessment that will give us the base for significant 
changes in both direction and speed. 

I certainly hope that this Act will do more than help us chart the 
right courses for our renewable resources. It also should serve as a 
model that can be applied to many other areas. 

Last week when I spoke to the'Society of American Foresters. I dis- 
cussed in some detail the West Virginia timber harvesting decision 
and some of its impacts. 

I will not replow that ground today. However, I would like to ex- 
pand a bit on what I said. 

I called on the membership of SAF as professional foresters to ex- 
press their views and cooperate in positive and constructive reform. 

And I call on you as a key citizen group to help work out this issue, 
as you helped get the Resources Planning Act adopted. I hope that 
your Areas of Agreement approach will help galvanize all conserva- 
tionists toward some cooperative solution as to how the National 
Forests should be managed. 

I am prepared to help. 

Shortly, I plan to re-introduce Section 201 of the original version 
of the Resources Planning Act. This will give the public and the 
Executive, agencies a bill on which to focus in order to decide what form 
new legislation should take. 

The fundamental issue we must face is whether forestry should be 
practiced in the courts, or in the woods. 

The next issue we face is whether Congress should write tight in- 
structions into law. or allow the professional resource manager the 
flexible authority needed to apply the best scientific forestry practices 
in a manner that assures complete respect for the environment. 

My sentiments are similar to those of a former chief of the Forest 
Service, who told your organization in 1035, "Forestry is a profession 
that will not tolerate political dominance.'' 

To best resolve these issues, Congress is going to need all of the help 
that you can give. 

In 1905 at the American Forest Congress, Teddy Roosevelt issued 
marching orders for ail of us here today when he said : 

"You are mighty poor Americans if your care for the well-being of 
this country is hoping that well-being will last out your own genera- 
tion. Xo man here or elsewhere is entitled to call himself a decent 
citizen if he does not try to do his part toward seeing that our national 
policies are shaped, for the advantage of our children and our children's 

We have a right to be confident about the future because we have 
accomplished so much. We have no right to be complacent because 
there is so much to do. 

For many years it was my good fortune to work closely with Senator 
Clinton Anderson of Xew Mexico, both in the Congress and earlier 
when he was a Secretary of Agriculture. Let me share with you a 
thought of his — a philosophy that I share. 

"Conservation is to a democratic government by free men as the 
roots of a tree are to its leaves." 


On this occasion which marks your 100th anniversary, I want to 
join with you in saluting that hardy band of 35 conservationists who 
set us on the course of wise resource management. Now, as a group 
with 80.000 members, I hope you will swell your impact to meet the 
challenges ahead. 

I see no reason why we cannot be pragmatic and idealistic at the 
same time. As the great American conservationist Carl Schurz said : 

"Ideals are like stars; you will not succeed in touching them with 
your hands. But like the seafaring man on the desert of waters, you 
choose them as your guides, and following them you will reach your 


[By Hon. Earl L. Butz, Secretary of Agriculture] 

When the first colonists to America stepped ashore they looked on 
untamed forests and virgin woods choked with underbrush. There 
were no well manicured farmlands or rows of neatly trimmed wooden 
houses in the suburbs, or quiet communities with schools and churches. 

But something equally good faced the newcomers. Thej looked out 
on the new land and knew that here they were seeing more potential 
than they had ever before witnessed. In the richness of the wilderness 
the settlers saw the resources and inspiration needed to yield a new life. 
They dug in and started the development work that ultimately pro- 
duced the rich nation of tody ; the nation that we all enjoy and too often 
take for granted. 

For those of us living in 1975, visiting a mountain wilderness area 
can bring the same sort of feeling. We can see the open countryside 
and feel a new breath of life. The beauty and the potential of un- 
touched land recharges our spiritual batteries, giving us a lift we can 
get in no other way. 

It would be sad indeed if on some future day Americans had no such 
wilderness area they could visit and get such a feeling. That's why our 
forefathers established a heritage of conservation and land preserva- 
tion we still carry on today. Americans have set up the National Park 
Service, the Forest Service, the Soil Conservation Service and many 
other federal and state agencies to help take care of the land. We have 
also set aside over 12 million acres of Wilderness Areas — 94 percent 
of which are in our National Forests. 

For some people, these efforts are not enough. They look to the large 
acreages in the National Forests and want to stop virtually all alter- 
nate uses except backpacking and nature hikes. 

This attitude is as unreasonable as the one that would ruthlessly 
exploit our national forestlands until every log, rock, mineral deposit, 
animal, fish, hidden trail, and clear stream would be endangered. One 
extreme plan is as unworkable as the other. 

It is a legitimate concern to want a healthy, well-balanced environ- 
ment, a place to take a physical and spiritual breather from the crowd- 
ed life of the cities. But that desire has to be balanced against reality. 
Against the growing need for farmlands and grazing land for grow- 
ing food. Against the need to unearth more mineral resources. Against 
the need to cut more timber and to turn out more wood products each 

The pressures on our National Forests will increase with every pass- 
ing year. They will increase as long as we want comfortable homes, out- 
door recreation, maple dining room sets, walnut furniture in our living 
rooms, plywood sheeting on our walls and roofs, or newsprint for our 
morning paper. 



The uses of forest products and forestland are manifold and ex- 
panding. The need for grazing land, for example, will increase some 
40 percent in the next four decades, some of this will be found in our 
National Forests. A rational policy to meet this demand as well as all 
the others has to be administered. It will have to be a plan that will 
perpetuate our forests as well as utilize them. Common sense must 

The battle over the nation's forests and forest products is nothing 
new. Some people have felt for a long time that forestlands should be 
privately held. Others argue for more federal control. Some want lower 
grazing fees on Federal Forestlands; others want higher fees. Some 
want to clearcut trees ; others argue that it is best to take only scattered 
trees, or none at all. 

Our national view of forest resources and how to best care for them 
and utilize them is in a constant state of evolution — as it should be. 
Changing times makes changing demands : this has always been so. 

Frankly, for those first settlers, the proliferation of trees must have 
seemed a mixed blessing. To clear enough land for barest subsistence 
they often had to cut away the trees. They girdled trees and stripped 
the bark from them, leaving them to dry. The following year they 
cut down the dead trees, grubbed out the stumps and roots, then 
planted their first crops. 

Some environmentalists today call that a ruthless practice. But at 
that time it was a necessity of survival. In our comfortable lives of 
today, living in a highly developed country, we forget that nature 
guarantees no man a living, that he has to make his own way. For 
the pioneers that meant clearing trees. For us today it means sensible 
forest management. 

When the early settlers finally pushed through the Cumberland Gap, 
struggling away from the East Coast, they drifted through the rolling 
lands of Ohio and onto the vastness of the Midwestern Plains. To do 
so, they first had to cut their way through the trees of the Allegheny 
Mountains. The timber they cut was not wasted; it was used for 
bridges, split rail fences, cabins, and riverboats. The abundance of 
easily available building materials did much to help develop this na- 
tion. Men with little in the way of finances, but long on muscle and 
creative energy could go into the wilderness and make a new beginning. 
They were no longer tied inexorably to the poverty of the past. 

In 1803, when President Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark up the Mis- 
souri River into the newly acquired land of the Louisiana Purchase, he 
nearly sent them to their deaths in the distant mountains of the Pa- 
cific Xorthwest. The explorers stumbled through snow-covered stands 
of pine trees for days before finally winding down the western slope 
of the new nation and into the safety of a milder climate. They were 
awed by the breadth of the timberlands of the west and the potential 
they saw. 

Today, those same mountain ranges carry the nation's largest stands 
of the Western White Pine and Douglas Fir. Much of it is being re- 
forested and well managed on a continuing basis. What was once an 
almost insurmountable wilderness has become a valuable, renewable 
resource — with little of the esthetic value damaged." 

The forests of the Xorthwest are now used by loggers, hikers, cat- 
tlemen, picnickers, miners, fishermen, and nature lovers. Some of 


the land is privately owned, but most of it is federally owned and ad- 
ministered by USDA's Forest Service. The multiple use of the area 
is a tribute to the fact that such programs can and do work. 

The same sort of progress in sensible, multiple use of forests can be 
seen in many parts of the country. One of the guiding factors in de- 
veloping these programs has been the American Forestry Association. 
Your association has long been a leader in recognizing that forests can, 
and should, provide a variety of goods and services — wood products, 
outdoor recreation, wildlife habitat, quality water, and just plain wil- 
derness. You deserve high praise for the assistance given to USDA, 
the Forest Service, and the nation, in assuring the best possible kind of 
forest management. Your support of adequate research for future 
forest improvements is also vital . 

Public involvement and participation from groups outside govern- 
ment is vital in good administration of National Forests and public 
lands. Sometimes I wonder if the general public realizes what a tre- 
mendous stake it has in public lands. National Forest lands contain 
about 18 percent of this nation's commercial timberland, and also pro- 
vide about 20 percent of the entire water supply. 

Fully one-third of this Nation's lands are publicly held. That figure 
usually shocks the easterner or the midwesterner, but comes as no 
surprise to the residents of America's West where the vast National 
Forests and grasslands stretch for seemingly endless miles. 

Another not widely known fact about public land is just how much 
of it falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. 
Many people think of USDA only as an agency dedicated to improving 
the farmer's lot, and assuring high levels of nutrition in the nation at 
reasonable prices. But we're also one of the nation's major land man- 
agers. Through the Forest Service, we directly manage more than 8 
percent of the surface area of the United States, about 187 million 
acres. This is an area equivalent to the combined area of West Virginia, 
Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Kentucky and North 

Also, because the Forest Service directs programs in State and 
private forestry, and carries out technical assistance and research ac- 
tivities available to all forestland owners, its influence is extended to 
about a third of the nation's land. 

That's a pretty big responsibility. No organization in or out of 
government has a more extensive research program covering plant 
growth, soils, water, air management, and plant pathology than the 
Forest Service. It is also backed up by its own, and the rest of USDA's 
specialists: mineral specialists, landscape architect, archeologists, ge- 
ographers, hydrologists, range specialists, wildlife experts, and land 
use planners. That's about as broad a group of specialists as you are 
going to find anywhere. 

I would add, without equivocation, that every one of them is dedi- 
cated to the job of determining how to best utilize and preserve this 
nation's land resources. These men and women have grown up working 
with the soil and studying the complexities of environmental relation- 
ships. They are not fly-by-nighters or quick-buck artists out to make 
a name for themselves or sell a new book or start a new organization. 
They represent the finest technicians of scientific inquiry. 


I think that with this kind of expertise, tied with the involvement 
of a responsible public, we can best plan for the future use of our Na- 
tional Forests. The Department is now in the process of drafting a 
Consumer Representation Plan by which consumers can better par- 
ticipate in such decision and policy-making processes. 

Also, there is the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Plan- 
ning Act of 1974. The purpose of it is to do exactly what we've been 
talking about: to match the needs of the people with the present use 
and potential future use of our natural resources. The Assessment 
and Program developed for the Resources Planning Act is now in 
draft form and is in the process of public review. Forest Service Chief 
John McGuire will be telling you more about it. 

A long-range look at the nation's reneAvable nature resources is es- 
sential. It will allow us to look ahead and act on the basis of solid 
information, rather than following the current, public tendency of 
jumping from crisis to crisis — some real and some imagined. 

Whatever we do, we must work to make common sense prevail, in 
place of emotions. Right now USDA and the Forest Service is in the 
process of determining the course to take in regard to the Monogahela 
National Forest. As you know, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals 
recently handed down a ruling which said no trees can be harvested 
for sale in the Monogahela decision unless they are dead, mature, or of 
large growth. This case has grave implications as far as the future of 
flexible forest management is concerned. 

However the problem is resolved, we must make certain that one 
isolated case does not become the basis for dictating national policy. 

Rigid, national prescriptions based on the problems of one area 
seldom work well in other areas. Such rulings result only in barriers 
to localized, professional judgments — which in the end would degrade 
our national forest resources and threaten their future. 

America's needs are changing. The day of the log cabin, or the home- 
stead for every family is gone, but the day of needing timber and 
Xational Forests will always be with us. Our forests are a viral. 
national trust and we must work to perpetuate them, assuring both 
preservation and balanced utilization. 


[By John R. McGuire, Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture] 

Discussing the resource situation on all Federal lands seems as formi- 
dable as David tackling Goliath. And Federal land administrators 
are not allowed to carry sling- shots. However, I'll do what I can imder 
the circumstances. 

The Forest Service recently released an assessment of all the 
Nation's renewable resources — and this ran almost 400 pages, with a 
sizeable portion of that bulk devoted to Federal lands. In fact, some 
critics even suggested that the report itself caused a national paper 
shortage. So, in order to avoid the risk of using up a considerable por- 
tion of the national oxygen supply, I'll hit what I consider the high- 
lights of the resource situation on Federal lands. 

I could tell you that the Bureau of Land Management has the most 
Federal rangeland, or that National Forests contain 94 percent of 
the Nation's Wilderness, or that National Parks serve as the treasure 
house of the Nation's unique and spectacular natural wonders. But 
these statistics tell only a small portion of the story. The true resource 
situation can be determined by answering one fundamental question. 
Are the Federal lands doing their share to meet the resource needs of 
the American people, and if not, why not ? 

This question has concerned Federal land agencies more and more in 
recent years. Yet no public administrator can answer it. Only the 
owners of these lands — the American people — can give us an answer. 
And many Americans, as individuals or in small groups, have given us 
their answers. Those answers vary. Often they conflict. They range 
from an outraged "hell no" to a resounding "yes." How, then, can a 
Federal land manager hope to find a consensus among the Nation's 
213 million people? Who will guide us in the wise use — or even sug- 
gest the extravagant waste, if that's what the American people want — 
of one-third of our Nation's land ? Incredible as it may seem, especially 
to those who live in the East, Federal lands do account for one-third of 
the U.S. land base. These figures are even more astounding- when only 
forest and rangeland are considered. Here the Federal portion jumps 
to about 46 percent, if you include the vast acreages of forestland in 

At first glance it would seem that two agencies administer the lion's 
share of this Federal land — the Bureau of Land M anagement with 62 
percent, and the Forest Service with 25 percent. But size is not the 
only indicator of importance or influence. The Park Service has 
jurisdiction over only about three percent of the Federal lands — but 
this is a vital three percent in terms of recreation and protection of 
unique natural splendor. Likewise, the four percent administered by 



the Fish and Wildlife Service is vitally important to the Nation's 
wildlife resources. That agency's lead responsibility for designating 
critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, not to mention 
its other responsibilities, marks it as a leader in wildlife resources. 

I should mention that Federal influence — and Federal funds — 
extend far beyond the Federal land boundaries. For instance, the 
Forest Service cooperative programs for State and Private Forestry 
extend to 630 million acres of land. Its research programs reach out to 
influence perhaps as much as two-thirds of the United States. 

The makeup of the Federal lands varies so greatly that it's difficult 
to generalize on them. It's almost impossible, for instance, to compare 
the National Parks to BLM grazing lands or to the multiple-use 
National Forests. Federal agencies have different mandates and dif- 
ferent responsibilities. But they do have one thing in common. Dur- 
ing the last decade or two, all Federal land agencies have had to 
initiate and respond to tremendous changes. Even the definition of 
"resource" has changed in the public's mind. Traditionally, recreation 
was not really considered a "resource." Today, it is. So is esthetic 
beauty. Yet who can really quantify esthetic beauty, let alone tell us 
how much we have, or how much we need ? 

All this has led to a new public awareness of all natural resources. 
It has also led to a great deal of controversy. This controversy can 
enhance the Federal lands, but at times it also threatens to destroy 
them. An honest exchange of viewpoints is good. It initiates change 
where change is needed. And Americans do care about what happens 
to their lands. More and more, citizens are becoming very knowledge- 
able about concepts, such as land use planning, silvicultural methods, 
and the complex interrelationships among various resources. The 
public can guide Federal land managers in the direction that will best 
meet changing needs and desires. 

But I believe there are times when emotionalism seems stronger than 
reasonableness. We are fortunate enough to have a wealth of scientific 
knowledge relating to our renewable resources. Many times, the 
answers to our land management questions are embodied in that 
scientific knowledge which man has worked centuries to accumulate. 
Yet, in the heat of emotionalism, groups intent on only one narrow 
purpose may suggest solutions which are not really solutions at all, 
but which contradict what we know about the land and its resources. 
In some instances, I fear that we are listening to a very vocal minority 
which professes to speak for the non- vocal majority. 

At the opposite extreme, there are those who refer to the present 
resource situation as though it were unalterable, inflexible — in short, 
prescribed by the fates or by Mother Nature. This is not the case at 
all. With our renewable resources, the present situation only reflects 
what we have made of those resources. The present situation certainly 
influences the future of those resources, but it does not mean that we 
have to follow our old patterns of land management. Renewable re- 
sources are not static. With planning, perception and research devel- 
opment, they can be managed to meet changing needs. 

We can assume that the base of Federal forest! and, except Alaska, 
will remain about the same as it is now. Counting all ownerships, the 
amount of forestland in the U.S. may actually shrink, as more land is 


needed for cities, highways, and the like. But demands on forestland 
are not shrinking — they are escalating rapidly. 

Congress has already recognized the importance of long-range 
planning for our renewable resources. In 1974, Congress enacted the 
Forest and Rangelancl Renewable Resources Planning Act. This re- 
quires the Forest Service to make periodic assessments of all the 
Nation's renewable resources, on all lands, and prepare long-range 
plans for Forest Service programs. Both an assessment and a program 
are due by the end of this year. These documents should provide a 
firm foundation on which Congress can base its budgetary decisions. 

Resource programs are intrinsically long-range. Often, in the past, a 
program has been started with a financial flourish, only to die the next 
year or so because its economic lifeline was cut. I am hopeful that the 
Resources Planning Act will enable the Forest Service to better meet 
public needs for .forests resources and that it will serve as a model 
useful for other natural resource agencies. 

In fact, the Assessment, which is still in draft form, is perhaps the 
closest thing we have to a comprehensive situation statement. It deals 
with all renewable resources in this country, under all ownerships. It 
predicts that by the year 2020, resource demands on all U.S. lauds will 
increase dramatically. For instance : 

— Demand for all major outdoor recreation activities will increase, 
from as little as 50 percent for motorcycling to over 400 percent 
for sailing. 

■ — Timber consumption could more than double, at today's prices. 

■ — Range forage demand will increase more than 60 percent. 

— Consumptive use of water will increase by more than 40 percent. 

— And. pressure on wildlife and fish resources will also increase 

More than ever, Congress is taking an interest in natural resources. 
It has introduced numerous bills pertaining to the Forest Service and 
other Federal land agencies. For instance, there are proposals for an 
Organic Act for BIAL There have also been numerous proposals for 
land use planning legislation. The last Congress held 10 oversight 
hearings on specific Forest Service programs and activities, as well as 
requesting two oversight briefings from the agency. 

Perhaps no resource is mere controlled by Congress than wilderness, 
which has to be designated by Congress. Xor is there any resource 
which is more surrounded by controversy. It is one of the easiest re- 
source situations to quantify — we know to the acre how much desig- 
nated wilderness we have. But. ironically, it is also one of the most 
difficult areas in which to assess need. Today, there are a little over 12 
million acres of wilderness. Ninety-four percent of this is on the 
National Forests. But, there is potentially much more wilderness. Pro- 
posals are now before Congress for an additional 26 million acres, 
which, if desiganted as wilderness, would more than triple the desig- 
nated wilderness in this country. 

Today, the courts are also taking a much more active role in resource 
management decisions. For instance, earlier this year, there were 28 
lawsuits pending against the Forest Service. Seventeen of these in- 
volved environmental issues. 

Perhaps one of the most controversial issues to reach the courts has 
resulted in the Monongahela decision, which holds that the Forest 


Service was in violation of the Organic Act of 1897 in its timber har- 
vesting practices on the Monongahela National Forest in West Vir- 
ginia. Specifically, the Court ruled that trees in the Monongahela can- 
not be harvested unless they are "dead, mature, or of large growth" 
and have been individually marked for cutting. Although the Court's 
decision applies only to that particular case, some groups and indi- 
viduals feel that it could be extended to all the National Forests, 
through a series of additional lawsuits. Since the decision involved a 
strict interpretation of the Organic Act of 1897, it will probably be 
up to Congress to determine whether the law, in its strictest interpreta- 
tion, is adequate ,f or today's timber resource situation. 

This is part of a controversy that has been raging for many years, 
over the role of Federal lands in helping meet the Nation's timber 
needs. And the National Forests seem to be at the center of the storm. 
National Forests contain about 18 percent of the Nation's commercial 
timber lands. Other agencies, such as BLM and the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, have another three percent. This does put the Forest Service in 
the best Federal position to help meet the Nation's timber needs. And 
the Nation's needs are growing — for timber, and for every other 
natural resource. At times, however, the Forest Service has been ac- 
cused of being only a timber agency, and I'd like to counter that claim. 
Less than half of the 187 million acres of National Forests are classi- 
fied as commercial timberland. Admittedly, timber is one of the major 
outputs o,f the Forest Service. But so are recreation, wilderness, water, 
wildlife, and rangeland. As I mentioned, National Forests contain 
about 18 percent of the Nation's commercial timberland. But they also 
contain over 94 percent of the Nation's Wilderness. And they provide 
20 percent of the water supply for the entire Nation. 

Another issue, which may become a controversy in the next several 
years, involves a vast amount of land in Alaska. The Federal Govern- 
ment administers 712 million acres of forest and rangeland. Of this, 
48 percent is in Alaska, a State often forgotten by residents of the other 
49. Most of this land is being held by the Bureau of Land Manage- 
ment, in what might be called a "bank account." The land is not being 
intensively managed now, but is waiting to be divided under the 
Alaska Statehood Act. Some of the land will go to other Federal 
agencies, some to the State, and some to the Alaskan natives. Congress 
has until December 18, 1978, to determine the specific allocation of the 
Alaska lands. 

As you can well imagine, the Alaska lands represent one of the great- 
est challenges in the entire resource arena. The resolution of this issue 
will affect each and every American. 

Right now there are nine bills before Congress proposing a wide 
variety of land ownership patterns for Alaska. For instance, they pro- 
pose anywhere from zero to 28 million acres of new National Forests. 

The Administration's proposal embraces recommendations made by 
the Secretary of Interior to create 18.8 million acres of new National 
Forests. Another 64 million acres are recommended for National 
Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

The Alaska issue is not a question of which agencies will get the 
largest share of the Federal pie. Alaska has a great deal of land — and 
that land has a tremendous diversity. Flying over the State, one sees 
the Alaska Range, the Brooks Range, and other spectacular country. 


Parts of these scenic mountain ranges are worthy of Xational Park 
designation, and it would be inappropriate not to preserve their beauty. 
But there are many other areas in Alaska which are ideal for multiple 
use. The diversity of Alaska's land is so great that it can easily accom- 
modate several Federal land systems. 

This is an issue of national magnitude, since all Americans are own- 
ers of the Federal lands, wherever they may be. Yet few people in the 
other 49 States recognize Alaska as a national issue in land use plan- 
ning. This recognition must come quickly if Americans really want to 
voice their opinions on this issue. The outcome of the Alaska lands 
issue could radically change the resource situation on Federal lands. 

I've mentioned some of the major issues concerning the resource situ- 
ation on Federal lands. I don't expect you to remember the statistics 
I've quoted. But, do remember one thing. The resource situation on 
Federal lands is not static, not inflexible. It can be changed and molded 
to fit future needs through sound principles of land management. But 
only the American people, through direct involvement and through 
their elected representatives, can point the direction for change. 

Those of us who manage Federal lands are here to serve you, as mem- 
bers of the American public. Do not forget to remind us of this from 
time to time. 

But, likewise, try to remember that there are 213 million Americans 
to serve. And many of those 213 million are demanding drastically 
different options on the same, relatively limited land base. 

Earlier I said that the .fundamental question is, "Are the Federal 
lands doing their share to meet the resource needs of the American 
people, and if not, why not?" Only you, as American citizens, can 
anwer that question 


[By Hon. Russell E. Train, Administrator, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency] 

Not long after I received Bill Towell's invitation to speak at this 
luncheon, 1 Avas sitting at home reading Catherine Drinker Bowen's 
fine new book on Benjamin Franklin (written just before her death) 
when I happened across this passage describing what Franklin saw 
as he journeyed up the Hudson in 1754 : 

Westward stretched the forest, endless, primeval, reaching on and on. No one 
in the sloop would have ventured to call the forest beautiful. Rather, it was 
"solemn, interminable, barbaric, harsh" ; none meets the adjectives often. Trees 
were man's enemy and must be felled. Until they were gone there could be 
neither crops nor fruit ; no safety, no ease, no civilization. 

And for well over a century in the new land, the air, I suspect, of- 
fered to the human ear few sweeter sounds than the chop of an ax 
and the crash of a falling tree. For as the trees fell, man flourished; 
as the forest receded, civilization advanced. 

So, at least, it seemed until, in 1875, a few farsighted citizens de- 
cided that, by the time it's a hundred years old, even a country as rich 
as we are ought to know better than to assume it could go on forever 
burning the resource candle at both ends. They saw that our vast 
forests had alread3 T been dangerously decimated and that, if we con- 
tinued simply to ''cut and run," we would sooner or later run out of 
room to run and forests to cut. They understood that, if we were to 
achieve enduring growth in this country, we must learn to conserve as 
we create — we must, indeed, learn that what we conserve is no small 
part of the life and world we create for ourselves and for those who 
will follow us. As we celebrate our Bicentennial, mindful both of our 
magnificent heritage from the past and the challenges of the future, 
we might well take as our theme — "To Conserve and to Create." 

TTe celebrate Earth Day in April, and say that it all started five 
years ago. But I think that, in a very real sense, it is Earth Day that 
we celebate here today, and that — if we must put an exact date on 
it — it began one hundred years ago, on the da}- when a small group 
of concerned citizens founded the American Forestry Association. If 
it took a hundred years for that first formal conservation effort to 
take firm root throughout the length and breadth of our society — as 
it now has in the form of the environmental effort — that should come 
as no surprise to you, who are accustomed to such lono- waits between 
planting and harvesting. You can take great pride in all you have 
done to make possible the strong environmental progress we have made 
over the past several years. 

It seems a lot longer than ten years ago when I first addressed an 
annual meeting of this Association in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. It 



was your 90th Annual Meeting held jointly with the National Council 
of State Garden Clubs. I had just become president of The Conserva- 
tion Foundation, and Bill Touell had only recently joined the For- 
estry Association. We met to consider ways of taking advantage of 
what I called the "truly extraordinary opportunity for constructive 
conservation accomplishment" that had been created by such events 
as President Johnson's Message on Natural Beauty, the White House 
Conference on Natural Beauty chaired by Laurance Rockefeller and, 
particularly the inspired effort that Lady Bird Johnson had set in 
motion to encourage citizens themselves to play an active and effective 
role in building a healthy environment. 

We have, as you well know, taken good advantage of that oppor- 
tunity in the decade since. At all levels of government, and through- 
out our society, we have made excellent progress toward developing 
a strong institutional base for effective environmental management. 
I cannot think of another instance in which this or any other society 
has moved more rapidly or comprehensively to come to grips with 
such a complex set of problems. 

Although our major environmental laws have been on the books 
for only a relatively short period of time, we are already seeing very 
real improvements in the quality of our air and waters. Since 1970, 
for example, we have cut sulphur dioxide levels by some 25%, and 
fine particulate levels by about 15%. Many of our rivers and lakes, 
especially the Great Lakes, are perceptibly cleaner. We still have a 
long way to go, but we have made genuine progress that will help 
make our lives healthier and more enjoyable. 

I have repeatedly stressed my view that EPA's success in carrying 
out the Clean Air and Water and other laws will be determined, not 
so much by our zest in issuing regulations or by our zeal in enforcing 
them — though these are important, particularly the latter — but by 
our willingness to work together with (and I stress those words) the 
citizens of this country, not simply after the fact, but in the very for- 
mulation of our regulations, guidelines and plans — by our willingness 
to make the people affected by our decisions and regulations a full 
partner in the process by which we arrive at those decisions and reg- 
ulations. In no respect is this need to get the people affected by what 
we do involved in what we do more urgent or important than in our 
effort to reduce water pollution from nonpoint sources. By its very 
nature, this effort will require active and effective cooperation between 
everybody concerned — between the newer environmental interests and 
the century-old natural resource conservation movement, between 
EPA and the State regulatory agencies and the forest and agricultural 
land management agencies and private industry. 

It is to assure precisely that kind of cooperation between the forest 
management, conservation, and environmental communities that EPA 
has joined with the Forest Service and your Association in holding 
seven forest practices and water quality workshops throughout the 
country. As I have suggested, we share common concerns and we stand 
on common ground. Good water pollution prevention practices are 
also good soil and water conservation practices. And I am determined 
that we take full advantage of your expertise and experience in devel- 
oping approaches to nonpoint source control in the Nation's forests 
that enable us to achieve our objectives under the law at least cost and 


greatest benefit. I want to pay special tribute to your president, Voir 
Gilmore, for the job he did as Chairman of the first workshop in 
Atlanta, and to the Association for putting the workshop together. 
I think we all learned a good deal from that workshop, and I look 
forward to the results of the rest of the workshops over the coming 

I know of your concern over the court order earlier this year re- 
quiring us to apply the permit approach to water pollution sources 
that we had exempted from the permit requirements of the National 
Pollution Discharge Elimination System. By February 10, 1976, we 
are required by that court order to propose regulations to cover point 
sources in silviculture. Before the court decision, as you know, we had 
regarded all silviculture sources of water pollution as nonpoint. Let 
me say, to begin with, that we have asked the Department of Justice 
to appeal the decision. In the meantime, Ave are holding a series of 
"town hall" meetings across the country to seek the advice of the 
citizens and groups most affected and informed on the questions 

We seek to learn, not only how we might best carry out the court 
order if, as it turns out, we must do so, but whether there are specific 
changes we might want to recommend in the Water Act that would 
help us in dealing with this issue. My view is that it simply makes 
no sense to take the federal regulatory permit approach to many of the 
sources of water pollution — especially those in agriculture and silvi- 
culture — that the court order would require us to take. By their very 
nature, they are best dealt with primarily at the State and local level 
as part of an overall, integrated approach to such sources based upon 
best management practices. Later this month we will be holding "town 
hall" meetings in Denver and Portland that concern themselves with 
the implications of the court decision for silviculture. I hope you will 
take advantage of them to give us your best help and advice. 

When I addressed your Association ten years ago, I stressed the fact 
that, in asserting the need to make "conservation values" and "ecolog- 
ical principles" an integral and ordinary part of the way we make 
decisions and do our business, that did not mean that they "should 
become the overriding determinants of policy." "What we should aim 
for," I suggested, "is to make such values a respected part of the 
decision-making process, to have them weighed in the balance along 
with economic and other criteria. At the present time," I went on to 
say, "they are largely overlooked so that alternatives supported by 
ecological standards are simply not made available to decision- 
makers." I also stated my view that: "When conservation values mean 
added costs, we should acknowledge this frankly, estimate the costs 
as accurately as possible, and provide the public and decision-makers 
with the facts necessary to making intelligent choices among the avail- 
able alternatives." 

We have, in the years since, accomplished much on both fronts. 
Environmental concerns are being taken into account, with increasing 
frequency and effectiveness, throughout our society. And EPA has 
consistently demonstrated its determination to do whatever it reason- 
ablv and responsiblv can to minimize the adverse impacts of its regu- 
lations — on particular industries as on particular cities, on the nation's 
economy as on the nation's energy or food supply. 


Late this summer, one of the most respected of the national survey 
organizations, Opinion Research Corporation, sent to its management 
clients an in-depth survey and analysis of "public attitudes toward 
environmental tradeoffs." Its results represent, I think, an accurate 
and instructive reflection of the public's commitment to environmental 
protection and progress and its feelings on some of the tradeoffs in- 
volved in achieving it. Let me cite just some of its results and 
conclusions : 

— Given a choice, six people in ten say that they believe it is more 
important to pay the costs involved in protecting the environ- 
ment than to keep prices and taxes down and run the risk of more 
— Nearly nine out of ten say that we are paying now for the pollu- 
tion that we have caused for many years. 
— Nine out of ten say they believe that, if we don't start cleaning up 
the environment now, it will cost us more money in the long run. 
— During the past year, a majority of the public have said that they 
believe it is likely the U.S. will run out of its supply of clean air 
(64%) and pure water (54%) within the next 50 years. 
— Clean air and pure water topped a list of 11 resources the public 
was asked to rate in terms of those the U.S. is most likely to run 
out of in that period — including oil, natural gas, coal, fish, copper, 
aluminum, meat, wheat, and iron. This ranking, moreover, was 
made almost a year after the Arab oil embargo and subsequent 
energy shortage. 
One last item : in the detailed results of the survey, public responses 
to specific propositions are broken down by various categories such as 
sex, age, education, family income. There is one category called "Envi- 
ronmental Activists,'' which is broken down by regions of the country. 
In response to the statement — "Cleaning up the environment is im- 
portant, but it should be balanced with the need to keep people work- 
ing" — 95 percent of the "Environmental Activists" in every region 
agreed, almost precisely the same percentage that agreed in every 
other category and in the public as a whole. Most environmentalists, 
in other words, are willing to seek a reasonable balance between envi- 
ronmental protection and other vital human needs. 

TThat all of this adds up to is. I think, two things : First, that the 
environmental movement and the pollution control effort is going 
strong and here to stay. And second, important and vital as that effort 
is. it's not all there is. We need clean air and water. But we also need 
jobs and profits, we need industry and houses, we need food and 
factories, we need energy and minerals, we need products and ma- 
chines. And I am determined that we at EPA do everything we can 
to meet our responsibilities in ways that won't put people out of busi- 
ness or out of work and that won't impose excessive and unreasonable 

I regard the need to minimize the social and economic impacts of 
EPA's efforts as one of the Agency's most important responsibilities. 
EPA has. in fact, been preparing economic analyses on its standards 
and regulations years before the President's requirements for inflation- 
ary impact statements. By the time our standards and regulations 
reach final form, they have received — and they reflect — the scrutiny of 
other Federal agencies, industry, environmental groups, and the gen- 

67-054—76 4 


eral public. While I cannot claim the process is perfect — as no process 
is perfect — it is the most open and rigorous process of economic impact 
analysis performed by any agency of the Federal government. And we 
will do all we can to continue to improve that process. 

I must, at the same time, make it clear that when I talk of ''balanc- 
ing*' environmental and other concerns I do not mean — as some others 
do — that we should permit the sacrifice of essential environmental 
values and public health needs for short-term energy and economic 
gains. We cannot forget when we talk about "balance"' and "tradeoffs" 
that environmental concerns are nowhere near taken into account as 
amply and effectively as they should be. The "environment" is a rela- 
tively new concern, and we have barely begun to achieve the full 
inclusion of environmental costs and benefits in the Nation's balance 
sheets. Because environment is a new concern and — at least in the ex- 
plicit sense — a new cost, it runs the risk, every time a new crisis comes 
along, of falling prey to the "last hired, first fired" principle. 

Xow, having said that, let us be perfectly clear that the costs of 
meeting environmental regulations are not new costs at all. They have 
been there all the time. When a power plant spews out uncontrolled 
sulfur oxides, the costs are real in terms of increased respiratory dis- 
ease, medical bills, even increased mortality. It is society as a whole 
that is bearing those costs. When we require the power plant to clean 
up its pollution, to install and operate flue gas desulfurization tech- 
nology, we are simply shifting the cost from society as a whole to the 
plant and its customers. Thus, the question is not "should we .pay 
these costs?" because we are already paying them. The only real ques- 
tion is who should be paying them. Moreover, it usually turns out that 
the cost of cleaning up pollution at the source is a good deal cheaper 
than the costs of adverse health effects and other damage otherwise 
borne by society as a whole. 

There are still some who refuse to believe that the American people 
are deadly serious in their demand for environmental progress and 
protection and cling to the hope that somehow there will come along a 
crisis so compelling that they can employ it to deceive the American 
people into believing that environmentalists are to blame and that the 
answer is an environmental retreat of one sort or another. There are 
still some who seek to hold environmentalists responsible for every 
ill wind that blows. 

For example, I have recently read several newspaper editorials 
which directly suggest that EPA and its 1972 ban on DDT bear major 
responsibility for the current outbreak of encephalitis — that we en- 
vironmentalists are somehow to blame for the tragic deaths from this 
disease. One of these papers, the Dallas Time Herald is due credit for 
its honesty in subsequently stating: "The editorial condemning the 
EPA for banning DDT was based on information which later proved 
incorrect. We regret the error." The facts have not, however, deterred 
some members of Congress from making the same baseless charge on 
the floor of the House of Representatives or, indeed, the Secretary of 
Agriculture himself from spreading the same story on repeated occa- 
sions. What are the facts of the matter? First. DDT had largely been 
abandoned for mosquito control in the U.S. before 1972 ban on DDT 
because mosquitos had become DDT-resistant. Second, EPA's 1972 
DDT ban specifically excluded public health uses from the ban. Indeed, 


EPA has in recent months given permission for such use on several 
occasions (for example, on rabid bats) where requested by responsible 
health officials. We can act rapidly in such cases. Third, at least ten 
products are registered and available for use against adult mosquitos, 
particularly malathion, and a good many more are registered for use 
against mosquito larvae. Against adult mosquitos, malathion is the 
product preferred by health agencies because of its superior knock- 
down power. Fourth, not a single health agency in the nation has 
requested the use of DDT in combatting encephalitis. Those are the 

It strikes me that there is far too much paranoia and suspicion, far 
too much of a "we're the good guys and you're the bad guys" attitude, 
far too much defending of turf and displaying of muscle, far too much 
of a tendency to see every difference in perspective and point of view as 
a "do-or-die" issue — far too much of this sort of high-decibel, surface 
noise surrounding the effort to carry on a constructive conversation 
about how best to get on with the job of incorporating environmental 
concerns into the day-to-day business of this country. There is, I 
think, far too much of an inclination, in dealing with the very difficult 
judgments involved in so many environmental decisions, for too many 
people to behave as if everything were being acted out against some 
absolute and immutable sky, as if the issues and the outcomes were 
always "either-or" and "all-or-nothing," forever and for keeps. I must 
say that environmentalists themselves can be just as susceptible to 
this kind of thing as anybody else. 

Let me say here that most of the easy problems have long since been 
dealt with. What we have before us now and for the long term are 
highly complex issues whose resolution will seldom please everyone 
and all too often will probably please no one. But I must admit to some 
weariness with the constant flow of inflated charge and countercharge. 
If a decision does not go as far as our environmental friends would 
like, it is immediately characterized as a "sellout," patently made under 
political pressure. If the decision goes against industry, it can only 
because EPA gave in to environmental bias and emotionalism — or so 
I read. If we develop preliminary data on a new problem, such as a 
suspect chemical in drinking water, and postpone calling an instant 
press conference on the subject until at least the scientific data has 
been reviewed, we are obviously conducting a "coverup," hiding the 
facts from the public. If, on the other hand, we do try to provide such 
information, we are, of course, being unscientific and indulging in scare 

Now, I am not so naive as to believe that somehow the competition 
for media attention will go away or that we will all become immune to 
the lure of a headline or of a 30-second spot on the evening news. And 
I know that EPA itself is not entirely innocent in these matters. But 
let us at least try to deal with the issues on their merits (of course, 
running the risk in so doing that the media may ignore us) arid let us 
try to accept as a working hypothesis until the evidence builds no to 
the contrary that the other fellow, whoever he may be — industrialist, 
farmer, forester, worker, environmentalists, or even bureaucrat — 
while perhaps wrong in any given case is operating in good faith, try- 
ing to deal with complex issues objectively, calling the facts as he sees 
them as best he can, and not engaging in a conspiracy against the 


public interest. A conspiratorial view of the world is romantic and 
often attention-getting but it is often destructive, particularly of the 
very institutions we realty need to promote the public interest. 

I hope that we environmentalists can rally together to fight for the 
real essentials because these are under serious attack from many 
quarters today. Just last Friday, the House of Representatives nar- 
rowly defeated by just 8 votes (175 to 167) an effort to give the Secre- 
tary of Agriculture veto authority over EPA's pesticide regulatory 
authority, an authority given EPA in 1970 to protect public health 
and the environment. The ostensible purpose of the amendment is to 
insure balance to our regulatory program. In my mind that would give 
us about as much balance as you would get by putting the coyote in 
charge of the sheep pen. This issue may well come up again in the 
House later this week, and we need your help now! 

Recently, the New York Times, which has over the years been a 
major and an effective force for environmental progress, carried on its 
Sunday front page a story whose two-column headline screamed: 
"Conservationists Assail EPA Rules Cutback/' From the virulence 
of the headline, you might have assumed that EPA had just granted 
a ten-year delay in meeting clean air standards to the steel industry or 
to power plants. Actually, if we went on to read the story, you would 
have discovered that I had put in motion within EPA an effort to 
reduce unnecessary regulations and to make more understandable those 
regulations we do publish. The story then went on to say that some 
environmentalists (who turned out to be two) regarded the EPA effort 
to try to simplify and streamline its regulations as a signal that — : and 
I quote — "the Ford Administration has abandoned the national com- 
mitment for clean air and water." Well, let me say this : There may be 
efforts in some parts of the Administration, in the Congress, in in- 
dustry, and in the public to pull back on environmental programs but 
my effort to reduce and simplify our regulations and our paperwork 
has absolutely nothing to do with those efforts. The truth is that, far 
from abandoning our effort to clean up air and water pollution, we 
are simply doing what any good bureaucracy should be doing — espe- 
cially one in the pollution control business — and that is to try, as best 
we can. to clear up some of the paper pollution that we have generated 
a great deal of over the past few years. I realize that we cannot make 
everybody happy. The paper industry, for one, will be upset. But I 
suspect that all the citizens and groups — environmentalists included — 
all the industries, all the local and state governments — everybody, in 
fact, with the possible exception of the legal community — will be 
delighted to discover that we are making a very serious effort to put 
some order and economy and efficiency into the vast volume of regula- 
tions that we issue. In all of this effort, there is not the slightest sug- 
gestion that we fail to carry out our statutory responsibilities or relax 
our environmental efforts. 

The latest figures I ttos able to obtain show that as of July 1. 1974 — 
well over a year ago — EPA's share of the Code of Federal Regulation? 
added up to some 2000 pages, was almost 3^ inches thick and weighed 
more than 5 pounds. I am sure it has grown considerably since then. I 
think it is high time we went on a diet — not by cutting down on essen- 
tials, or in any sense abandoning or impairing our effort to carry out 
our environmental laws — but by trying to write our regulations in 


clear and concise English, by trying to cut down unnecessary over- 
lapping and duplication and, in general, by doing all we could to 
reduce red tape and get rid of gobbledygook. If we can succeed in do- 
ing that, then I think we will be performing no small service to any 
and all who are required to read or comply with our regulations. I do 
not believe our success will be measured by the quantity and com- 
plexity of the regulations we issue ; it will be measured by how clean 
the air and water become. And I want to be absolutely sure that our 
regulations help speed and smooth the way to making them clean. 
"Best Management Practices," like some other things, must begin at 

I am not in the slightest bit apologetic about this effort. EPA has 
been slow in some areas in getting out needed regulations and by reduc- 
ing the nonessentials we should be able to put more resources to work 
on real priority needs. By and large, given the fantastic demands put 
upon the agency by Congress and given our limited resources, I believe 
EPA has done an extraordinary job in the regulatory field, and I am 
proud of the dedicated men and women who have made this possible. 
I have travelled all over the country in the past weeks, and I have 
talked with individuals and groups of all kinds. Everywhere I find 
strong support for environmental programs but everywhere I find also 
a growing impatience and resentment at interference by the Federal 
government. Only last week, I visited a state environmental protection 
agency official who told me that he had had to pull a number of his 
limited staff out of field enforcement and monitoring to put them to 
work dealing with EPA reports and forms. If that is true, you can be 
sure there are going to be some changes made. I am setting up a task 
force, with state agency representation, to see where we can reduce 
and simplify EPA forms and reports. 

At the same time, while I am committed to a continued strong 
leadership role for the Federal government in environmental matters 
as contemplated by our statutes. I am also firmly committed to delega- 
tion of authority to State and local governments wherever this can be 
done. It is essential that they have the resources that will enable them 
to exercise these responsibilities effectively. To summarize, therefore, 
you can say I am committed in principle to giving as much responsi- 
bility as possible to those levels of government which are closest to the 
people and to streamlining and making more fully responsive those 
responsibilities which must continue to be exercised at the Federal 

I have suggested that we stand on common ground and share a 
common goal : the efficient use and protection of our land, water and all 
of our natural resources. Indeed, the wise use and protection of these 
resources during the rest of this century is the underlying and over- 
riding concern of this meeting and this Congress. It is, in my judg- 
ment, the needless and heedless waste of our natural resources that 
lies at the root of our energy, our economic and our environmental 
problems. These are simply symptoms of the fact that, in one way or 
another, we are living beyond our means. 

The energy crisis, material shortages, and world agricultural short- 
ages all demonstrate that we as a society have not been aware of the 
factors and forces that affect the availability of resources until we 
are facing imminent crises. Thus, we have begun a "crash" research 


and development program on energy sources and are just coming to 
grips with the inflationary impacts of material shortages. The next 
decade will be crucial in determining our ability to feed the world's 
population. We desparately need an institution to analyze the factors 
and forces that affect the availability of resources and to set forth 
strategic alternatives that will be necessary to avert problems of this 
magnitude in the future. That institution should be able, as well, to 
assess not simply the availability of resources — not simply their sup- 
ply — but the various uses of those resources as well as their environ- 
mental and other impacts. 

When I first spoke to this Association ten years ago, I proposed the 
creation of a. President's Council of Ecological Advisers. Five years 
later, under a different name, such a Council was established. I would 
today recommend the creation of a similar institution responsible for 
evaluating long-term trends in resource use and availability both in the 
United States and throughout the world, and for assessing alternatives 
in the use of scarce materials and in the development of new techniques 
or materials to extend their use. Indeed, perhaps the current Council 
on Environmental Quality should be reconstructed into something like 
a Council on Environment and Natural Resources, which would deal 
with the whole broad spectrum of critical issues involving the avail- 
ability and use of our natural resources. 

As you have long understood, the really critical issues before this 
country are not the immediate and isolated ones, but the interrelated 
and long-range ones — indeed, the day-to-day "crises" that seem to 
capture all our attention and consume all our energies are, for the* most 
part, simply manifestations of far deeper problems that we never seem 
to get around to acknowledging, much less addressing. Our economic 
health and growth, our patterns of settlement and physical develop- 
ment, our social stability and strength — these both determine and de- 
pend upon a vast and intricate system of material, energy and environ- 
mental resources. Under these conditions, we cannot hope to come to 
grips with the issues before us unless we strengthen our ability to assess 
problems and programs, not simply in isolation, but in relation to each 
other ; not simply over the short term, but over the longer span of 10, 
20 or 30 years. 

John Kennedy often told the stor}- of a great French Marshall — I 
always conveniently forget his name because I can never remember 
how to pronounce it — who once asked his gardener to plant a tree. The 
gardener objected that the tree was slow-growing and would not reach 
maturity for a hundred years. The Marshall replied, "In that case, 
there is no time to lose. Plant it this afternoon." 

In terms of the critical issues before this country — the longer-range, 
interrelated issues that I have described — the afternoon is already 
upon us. 

We need to start planting — now. 


Way back in 450 B.C., Artaxerxes I, King of Persia, tried to restrict 
cutting of the legendary cedars of Lebanon. My modest research does 
not indicate whether Artaxerxes succeeded in this endeavor, but at 
least it proves that governmental regulation of the forest industry has 
a long history. 

It has also, I was surprised to learn, a somewhat violent one. In 
1772, the residents of Weare, New Hampshire, rioted when an officer 
of the King attempted to confiscate 270 pine logs reserved to provide 
masts for His Majesty's ships; on that occasion, two armed regiments 
had to be dispatched to enforce the law. By 1853, we had managed to 
change our government — but not our intense feelings about forests. 
In that year, an official from the Land Office in Washington barely 
escaped lynching when he tried to repossess some timber that had 
been cut from government-owned land around Manistee, Michigan. 
The government's answer, again, was force: armed sailors from the 
U.S.JS. Michigan had to be landed to restore order. And earlier this 
year, following a state court ruling that restricted the cutting of red- 
wood trees, Governor Brown of California was decapitated in effigy. 

Decapitation in effigy is, to be sure, a vast improvement over an 
actual lynching. Nevertheless, as a government official preparing to 
talk about a resource that has stimulated so much controversy in the 
past, I must confess to a certain tingling sensation around my neck — ■ 
particularly when it is clear that we are building to more confronta- 
tion about timber in the near future. 

Between 1942 and 1972, the U.S. demand for wood and wood prod- 
ucts increased by 65 percent. According to the U.S. Forest Service, 
that demand will double again by the year 2000. At present, annual 
growth of timber in the U.S. exceeds cutting — but that surplus con- 
dition won't last long. Within two decades or so, projected demand 
for forest products will outrun annual harvest, both on privately 
owned timber land and on the publicly owned lands managed by the 
Forest Service. 

That day of reckoning is being hastened by the rapid cutting of 
old-growth timber on privately owned lands in the West. This makes 
short-term economic sense from a corporate standpoint, no doubt; 
stockholders in a private lumber corporation might support this rapid 

But as a stockholder in a public lumber trust — the 92 million acres 
of our National Forests — the rapid harvest of old-growth trees on 
private lands gives me considerable anxiety. Inevitably, industry will 
reach the point when their old-growth stands have been completely 
cut, and the new stands have yet to achieve maturity. Lumber pro- 



ductivity will fall off sharply, there will be a mounting gap between 
supply and demand, and industry will have to come after our lands — 
the forests that you and I and 213 million other Americans own in 
joint partnership. Heavy pressure will be placed on Congress and the 
Administration to increase the allowable cut on Forest Service lands. 

Indeed, there are already signs of this mounting pressure. As you 
know, the Panel on Timber and the Environment recommended, in its 
1973 report to the President, that average cutting on four western 
forests be boosted 39 percent. Industry sources also urge — as reflected 
in the "Green Paper" advertisements currently being sponsored by the 
American Forest Institute — that productivity on Federal lands be 
increased through intensive, high-yield forestry. 

On their face, these proposals seem quite plausible. The Forest 
Service admits that the land under its management produces 50 per- 
cent less wood fiber per acre than industry-owned lands. Timber is a 
commercially valuable natural resource, and in a time of economic 
slump, it would seem desirable to boost productivity in every way we 
can. It's relatively easy to place a monetary value on wood and wood 
products, to total employment figures for the industry, and to point 
out, in short, the enormous economic value that forestry contributes 
to the nation. On the other hand, it's extremely difficult to place a 
dollar-figure on such other forest values as recreation, protection of 
wildlife habitat, and aesthetics. 

Thus, the private timber industry will have several powerful argu- 
ments to present to Congress, the Administration, and the public 
when it urges an increase in allowable cut. Those who support the 
conservative harvest policies now followed by the Forest Service will 
undoubtedly be criticized as Utopian visionaries ; increasing produc- 
tivity and harvest on the Forest lands, by contrast, will be seen as the 
hard-headed, no-nonsense, practical thing to do. 

My remarks today will tend toward the Utopian, visionary point 
of view. What I want to argue, however, is that a conservative attitude 
toward our use of the public forests is the hard-headed, no-nonsense, 
practical course to take. 

Let me begin by pointing out that there are excellent reasons for 
the comparatively low productivity of Forest Service lands. The in- 
dustry owns more productive lands, their stands are younger and 
more vigorous, and the intensive forestry practices used by industry 
produce wood faster. These practices include growing stands of trees 
all of the same age ; artificial planting — generally of one species, thus 
establishing a monoculture; control of competing vegetation by fire, 
chemical, and other means; use of chemicals such as pesticides and 
fertilizers ; the breeding of new genetic strains of "super" trees ; and 
proper thinning as the stand matures. 

The Forest Service also employs these practices, but generally to 
a lesser extent. The principal reason is that timber production is only 
one of the uses mandated for the public forests by law. In 1970, the 
Public Land Law Review Commission tried to alter this concept of 
"multiple-use" by recommending that some public lands should be 
"classified for timber production as the dominant use." Environ- 
mentalists protested this recommendation, and the Forest Service has 
never adopted it. 

Yet the conservative, multiplo-use policies of the Forest Service 
could be changed by law. It would be well, therefore, to consider the 


possible impact that a switch to intensive, high-yield management 
might have on our public forests. 

You know what the common objections to high-yield forestry are. 
First among them is its tendency to favor monoculture : to promote 
extensive stands of single species of trees, of the same age. A basic 
principle of ecology is that diverse ecosystems are much more resistant 
to attack than ecosystems in which genetic variety has been cut to a 
minimum. Sometimes, nature itself develops nearly pure stands of 
single tree species without man's intervention — especially after fires; 
no matter how the monoculture is created, however, its susceptibility 
to disaster is heightened. 

Modern agriculture depends on monoculture: our farmers grow 
fields of wheat or of corn or of sugar-beets, rather than simply toler- 
ating whatever smorgasbord of crops nature sees fit to provide. But 
farmers learned that some hybrid strains, bred to provide man with 
the greatest amount of food, have gained that productivity at the 
expense of some self-protection. In 1970, 15 percent of the corn crop 
was lost when a high-yielding variety widely adopted in the southern 
states, proved unusually susceptible to leaf blight. The high-yielding 
varieties of Green Revolution wheat, remarkable as they are, have a 
high potential for widespread loss, owning to their genetic uniformity. 

Silviculture, I realize, is not strictly analogous to the annual cul- 
ture that characterizes most food-farming, and I do not mean to push 
a false parallel. The point I wish to make, rather, is this : an agricul- 
ture as varied and productive as that of the United States can weather 
a single year's crop failure. Agronomists can diagnose the difficulty 
fast, and — usually — supply a quick remedy. And consumers can eat 
cheap potatoes for a season instead of high-priced bread. But if for- 
esters make a mistake with their crop, even the swiftest diagnosis 
may not repair the damage. If blight or a pest or a defect shows up 
when a stand of trees is 20 years old, we will be paying for that error 
for 20 years. 

There are some suggestions that high-yield forestry is flirting with 
that kind of long-term, hard-to-reverse, error. Maximizing growth 
of the Douglas-fir in a single forest, for example, requires suppression 
of the alder. Yet the alder fixes nitrogen, creating fertilizer with the 
aid of the sun, and passes it through the soil to the Douglas-fir, which 
cannot nourish itself in this fashion. In addition, the alder — it is 
widely believed — suppresses root-rot, to which the Douglas-fir is par- 
ticularly susceptible when it is 20 or 25 years old. Indications are, in 
sum, that the alder and the Douglas-fir are not entirely competitors, 
but partners. 

Intensive, high-yield forestry need not, I realize, eliminate all 
other uses of forests. Progressive timber companies manage their 
own lands for multiple use, proving that high timber productivity is 
not necessarily incompatible with protection of watersheds and wild- 
life habitat, grazing, and recreational use. Nevertheless, multiple -use 
of any finite land system ultimately involves trade-offs: at some point, 
an increase in timber harvest must be purchased at the expense of one 
or more other values. And some practices necessary to accelerated 
management will compel tradeoffs that we may not anticipate. 

For example, mature or dead trees, and logs, are essential for some 
forms of forest wildlife. Fully 40 percent of forest bird species nest 


in cavities in dead trees and logs. Snags in national forests in Cali- 
fornia are used by 30 species of birds, 20 species of mammals, and 
thousands of other organisms, many of which are primary food for 
higher forms of wildlife. If timber production were to dictate the re- 
moval of dead trees and snags on a large scale, species of birds and 
other forms of wildlife that require mature forests might be reduced 
to relic populations. 

In addition, accelerated management frequently calls for the exten- 
sive use of herbicides, to control competing plants and thus stimulate 
the growth of young trees. But the use of herbicides also short-cuts 
the successional stages of a forest — the series of modifications that 
occurs naturally after forest-land has been cleared. Each stage in 
this natural succession is accompanied by changes in soil condition, by 
a different set of plants, and by different species of wildlife that feed 
on the plants. Probably 80 percent of wildlife in eastern and western 
forests — including deer — are successional ; they cannot exist in dense 
forests whose floors have been swept clean of understory by chemicals. 

These are some of the impacts that we can anticipate from intensive, 
high-yield forestry. But if there is a single lesson from ecology that 
every citizen of the modern world should learn, it is that not all im- 
pacts can be anticipated. The earth has its own decision-making proc- 
ess — its own stubborn, sometimes mysterious and often nasty way of 
responding to man's hopeful interventions. History gives us a right to 
take pride in the astounding ability of the human species to manipu- 
late our environment for our own benefit. But ecology warns us to 
maintain a certain caution about the limits of human expertise, and 
the brevity of man's experience on this planet. When we talk about 
intensive, high-yield forestry, we are talking about a quite novel, still 
experimental intervention in an ecosj^stem that has been evolving for 
millions of years. Despite the achievement that high-yield forestry 
represents, it is well to exercise caution before extending it to the 
public lands — for we have paid again and again a price for the mis- 
placed certitude of experts. 

Experts in civil engineering built the Aswan Dam ; they knew about 
concrete and irrigation and the number of kilowatts that could be 
generated by a turbine-blade with a certain pressure from the Xile 
River behind it. But they didn't know about the water hyacinth and 
the aquatic snail and the blood-fluke, or what happens when an annual, 
turbulent flood is suddenly tamed to a quiet, smooth-flowing river. 
In consequence, millions of Egyptian farmers are infected with a de- 
bilitating disease called schistosomiasis. Experts built the St. Law- 
rence Seaway, which permitted ocean traffic to enter the Great Lakes 
from Atlantic ports : they knew about the costs of transportation, the 
expense of shifting a cargo from a ship to a train to a truck, the prob- 
lems of designing canal locks that would permit an ocean-going vessel 
to enter the Lakes. 

But they didn't know about the sea lamprey, which can swim better 
than any freighter, and which entered the Lakes along with the ships, 
destroying a fishing industry. Experts in chemistry developed phos- 
phate detergents that enabled American women to wash washes whiter 
than white — but they didn't think about the capacity of municipal 
sewage systems to break down these new bubbles, and so. for a while, 
our waters were frothing at the mouth with an indigestible threat to 
our health. 


Each of these examples reminds humans that our earth has its own 
response to our ingenuities, and that the best-laid plans of our experts 
have oft gone astray. I think the work that has been done in the de- 
velopment of high-yield forestry is admirable — but I also believe that 
we have not yet had sufficiently extensive experience with it to ade- 
quately appraise all the risks it entails. Prudent risk is the name of the 
game in free enterprise, and industry is entitled to take those risks on 
its own lands. But the public lands are a public trust, and we are not 
entitled to gamble them on a promising but unproved technology. 

Does that mean nothing should be done to ease the projected short- 
age of wood ? 

No. I think several steps can be taken. The Forest Service itself 
recognizes that it can improve timber-management on its own lands, 
without going to monocultures or adopting timber production as the 
dominant use. In response to the Forest and Eangeland Renewable 
Resources Planning Act of 1974, the Forest Service has published a 
draft of alternate plans for the use and development of these resources 
out to the year 2020 ; this program should provide the best basis we 
have ever had for sound, public forest management. In addition, the 
Forest Service has begun testing a more liberal cutting policy on the 
Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington State. The crucial ele- 
ment in this decision was a long-term commitment of funds necessary 
to guarantee an accelerated program of reproduction and intensive 
timber culture. If this test proves successful, other national forests in 
the Pacific Northwest are likely to follow suit. 

Better resource-use is another possibility, and the Forest Service is 
working on that. For example, its researcn arm — in cooperation with 
HUD and the American Plywood Association — has developed a new 
construction material made of the ground-up particles from the inner 
part of a log ; this process has the potential of doubling the usable wood 
products derived from a tree. Another Forest Service project, the Saw- 
mill Improvement Program, has documented increases in production of 
11 percent through improved sawing and milling techniques. 

Finally, we should find out about those legendary four million citi- 
zens whose woodlots compose 59 percent of our forested land but ac- 
count for only 30 percent of the wood fiber. How many of their lots are 
large enough to merit commercial management? How many of those 
owners are interested in commercial production? We simply do not 
know enough about these four million to make sensible proposal re- 
garding timber production on their land — but that land is undoubtedly 
the sleeping giant of the timber industry. One private firm, of which I 
am aware, has initiated a program to help interested private owners 
make their holdings more productive. In return for its help, the com- 
pany obtains the right to buy the timber at competitive prices. 

Hence there are many ways of increasing timber production with- 
out increasing the allowable cut on public lands, or risking them on a 
high-yield management that concentrates on only one forest resource. 
We should not allow a projected wood shortage to panic us into re- 
versing conservative policies on the forests that belong to all of us. 

The Centennial of the American Forestry Association is in itself a 
reminder of the long public interest in forests, and an occasion for 
remembering how difficult it was for us to rescue some part of our 
national forest inheritance in the days when industry had no interest 
in replanting the lands it had cleared. But your centennial is also an 


opportunity to look forward. A century from now, your successors will 
look back and render a judgment on the quality of the stewardship your 
policies reflect. 

You look back with pride at the work of your own predecessors, who 
did so much to protect our forests in days when even the Government 
was wasteful with them. I hope, in the coming conflict over supply and 
demand, you will continue to support a policy of long-term conserva- 
tion, and reject the counsels of short-term convenience. We can and 
should learn to manage our public lands for greater productivity — but 
we should not squander them, and we have no right to gamble them, 
for they are a trust we owe to the future. 


[By Dr. Edward E. Palmer, President, State University of New York, College 
of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, N.Y.] 

It has often been said that most of the maladies of civilization, con- 
temporary or older, have been due to one or a combination of two 
principal circumstances. One of these is the false classification of people 
into races, nationalities, religions, or some other exclusive classifica- 
tion. The other is the false classification of knowledge into rigid cate- 
gories that become exclusive and impervious. While higher education 
in America has reacted positively to the breakdown in the classification 
of people through affirmative action, ecumenism, equal opportunity, 
senior citizen, and minority programs, we still have a long way to go 
in consummating such a breakdown or, paradoxically, we have fallen 
into such deeply rooted bad habits, that the breakdown of one set of 
"people" categories often leads to the construction of others that are 
equally false. A process of debate will continue for some time in the 
application of the idea of equality until we are, perhaps, able to de- 
termine more scientifically who are really unequal, who are inferior, 
and who are superior. False theories about inferiority and superiority 
continue to be tempting to most people, for each of us suffers from some 
slight or stronger aristocratic strain in his psyche. 

The other circumstance, perhaps even more painful and costly, is the 
insistence upon rigid classifications of knowledge. Without elaborating 
upon the history of such systems of classifications, suffice it to say that, 
in our efforts to resolve some of the principal public problems of the 
day, our failures are largely due to negligence in relating one area of 
knowledge to another. 

In recent years, our awareness of the pressures of environmental 
problems has quickened. We have become increasingly cognizant of 
the degeneration of our surroundings, of the loss of aesthetic quality 
in our vistas, of the inevitable limits on our environmental resources, 
and the irreversibility of some of our actions when we throw the 
natural process of our universe into disorder. Indeed, efforts to in- 
crease such awareness permeate our entire educational system. 

Recognizing with increasing intensity the relationship of our en- 
vironment to our own welfare, we have devised excellent new goals — 
the proper management of resources that are renewable, conservation 
of those that are not; the control and reduction of pollution; and 
compensation for disaster, both natural and man-made. But because 
we have seen the universe primarily as compounded of chunks and 
pieces, and because we are impatient beings, we have demanded quick 
solutions to what we have seen as separate environmental problems. 
The effects of such narrow approaches to understanding of the bio- 
sphere, and of impatient attempts even with new technologies to solve 



discrete environmental problems via short-term remedies, have not 
met with unqualified success. The very solution to a specific problem in 
one aspect of the environment has often meant the creation of another 
even more acute problem somewhere else. 

Ironically enough, the theories of knowledge and the claimed 
structure and the relationship of science, technology, and ideology, 
which made possible man's earlier triumphs, now contribute to our 
contemporary frustration. Having segregated people, separated 
"types" of knowledge, and segmented the physical universe in order 
to explore, understand, and control more easily, we now find that our 
intervening disciplinary walls impede rather than enhance the prog- 
ress of our understanding of the environment as a whole. And the 
disparate role of areas of knowledge devised to deliver benefits — 
originally undertaken in a desire for the benefits of social and 
political hierarchy, of divided labor, and the efficiency of specializa- 
tion — now seriously hamper man's contemporary efforts to understand 
and cope effectively with his environment as a whole. 

The environment in which we live is not an assortment of discrete 
objects and events, but a vast seamless web, a single entity, an inte- 
grated system of interacting synergistic phenomena. Though many 
great thinkers have presumed an orderly universe and attempted to 
build blueprints of civilization on such an assumption, only now 
are we beginning to develop the very special understanding and tech- 
nology necessary to deal with the mutuality of environmental 

To muster these critical capabilities, we need a new discipline that is 
also seamless in its design. The application of the new discipline will 
not be possible without the training of scientists in comprehending 
the ecological harmony, rhythm, and synthesis in the environment, 
though they may focus action on more specialized aspects of problem 
solution. The most promising recent approach to the overall problem 
has been of demand for a new "environmental science" which would 
conceive of the environment and its problems on a systems' basis. Such 
an approach would envision the cosmos as a synthesis, as a series of 
interrelating systems — air, land, water, all forms of life — and seek to 
understand them as aspects of a coherent whole. 

We thus propose the education and training of a new kind of dis- 
ciple. His understandings will be based on the systems' approach to 
environmental science. He will also be conversant with the broad 
range of technologies necessary to deliver that science to those at- 
tempting to modify the environment. And, he will be familiar with 
the behavioral, economic, political, and legal considerations involved 
in forming value judgments and decisions about the nature and con- 
ditions of that delivery. 

Oddly enough, some people are still uncomfortable with both the 
term and the concept of environmental science. It may, therefore, be 
desirable to review the genesis of the current environmental concern 
in order to provide perspective, and to appreciate how environmental 
science should be perceived by the varying constituencies of research 
and education. 

The current environmental thrust is a composite of three main his- 
torical developments. These are Environmental and Pollution Control 
to protect the public health ; Conservation of Natural Resources to pre- 
serve the natural resources base ; and Expansionist Pressure and Tech- 


nological Development which have stressed both environmental and 
pollutional control, and conservation efforts, and have introduced new 
requirements in environmental design. 

Environmental and pollution controls have clear and precise origins. 
Modern public health programs date from 1876 when Louis Pasteur 
demonstrated the role bacteria play in fermentation and disease. The 
conclusions became institutionalized in public health programs in the 
first and second decades of the twentieth century. Efforts focused on 
water supply, pollution control, vector control, food sanitation, solid 
waste management, and toxic materials. Colleges and universities 
played major roles in research and education in providing a firm tech- 
nological base for effective action. As time advanced, programs in 
noise control, air pollution, housing, radiological health, and pesti- 
cides emerged. 

A major focus of all of such programs was the impact on man, as 
measured by morbidity and mortality statistics. There was no par- 
ticular emphasis on the impact on resource supply and quality. As 
time progressed, a more comprehensive approach developed, with a 
major thrust in the form of regulatory programs. 

The conservation drive dates from the establishment of Yellow- 
stone National Park in 1872, followed by the establishment of Na- 
tional Forests and other conservation efforts. These were also insti- 
tutionalized in programs in the first two decades of the twentieth 
century. The establishment of the principle colleges of forestry was a 
direct result of that conservation movement. Interest matured into 
programs covering all renewable natural resources, water, soils, trees 
and forests, and fish and wildlife, based on proper management and 
use. The focus shifted to the resources ; but the programs were mainly 
administrative and managerial, not regulatory. 

Although somewhat separate from renewable natural resources, the 
discovery and effective development and maintenance of adequate re- 
serves of nonrenewable natural resources of oil, coal, and minerals was 
part of the developing picture. Again, colleges and universities played 
major roles in advancing these efforts. The conservation effort divided 
into two major segments; the management-and-use group, and the 
preservation-and-nonuse group. The two segments of citizenry have 
been at loggerheads almost continuously. 

Both conservationist and environmental control programs were 
stressed by expressionist pressure and technological development since 
their inception. However, these stresses reached full flower in the post 
World War II era, and continue to this day. 

There was tremendous growth in population, coupled with a strong- 
urbanizing trend. In addition, economic prosperity increased spend- 
able income and leisure time. This resulted in accelerated land devel- 
opment for residential, commercial, and industrial use; in exponen- 
tial increases in automobiles, snowmobiles, motor boats : and in over- 
whelming pressure on recreational facilities. A vast new network of 
environmental services, water supply, sewerage drainage, and solid 
waste disposal systems were required. An expanded neAv highway 
system was put under construction; airports were expanded; water 
resources development accelerated. The consumption of all natural 
resources rose dramatically, requiring new development on a continu- 
ous basis. Energy demands skyrocketed ! 


On the technical side was the wholesale use of new persistent pesti- 
cides, increasing use of artificial fertilizers, the replacement of soap 
by detergents, the development of nuclear energy, atmospheric bomb 
testing, medical, industrial, and research use of radioactive isotopes, 
the advent of the jet plane, the growth of the plastics industry, the 
use of one-way packaging, and the general growth and development 
of industry to meet expanding consumer demands. 

The end result was environmental deterioration, air pollution, water 
pollution, rise in environmentally related diseases, destruction of re- 
sources, hit-and-miss development, mountains of solid waste, intoler- 
able noise, imperviousness to aesthetic considerations, loss of unique 
natural areas, loss of valuable agricultural land, destruction of fish and 
wildlife, accelerated entrophication of waters, and spoilage of recre- 
ation and wilderness areas by overuse. 

The combination of all these elements overwhelmed the old line 
governmental agencies and programs, and brought increasing demands 
for better scientific information, improved technology, better man- 
agement, and regulation to cope with growth, consumption and tech- 

The responses were new programs and reorganization at the federal, 
state, and local levels of government. At the federal level the Environ- 
mental Protection Agency was created, putting all environmental con- 
trol programs into a single agency. A number of new laws were en- 
acted to provide environmental impact assessment; water, air, and 
noise pollution controls ; water resources planning ; coastal zone man- 
agement ; multiple forest use ; wild and scenic rivers designation ;' and 
proposed land-use planning. 

States either led the way or followed suit. Some states took a num- 
ber of actions, including the creation of new programs in water pollu- 
tion, air pollution, solid waste, fish and wildlife, water supply, scenic 
and wild rivers, outdoor recreation, radiological control, unique area 
land acquisition, regional land-use control, local environmental man- 
agement councils and commissions, and environmental impact analy- 
sis. A few states also consolidated environmental programs — including 
pollution control, resource management, and emerging growth and 
technological development programs — into a single department or 
agency of the state. 

Local levels of government have followed suit with new programs 
and reorganization. International concerns, and in some instances 
global concerns, have been institutionalized through scientific coopera- 
tion, treaties, and agreements. 

The separate development of environmental and pollution control, 
natural resource management, and control of emerging technology and 
expansion, that is, growth and consumption, have all now merged into 
a single unified continuum. It must be recognized that all of these 
things are, in fact, inseperable and should be amalgamated within en- 
vironmental science. Although this concept is beginning to be accepted, 
it is not reflected in policy and programs and institutional arrange- 
ments. Rather it is conflict and competition that are rife in the area 
of environmental management. 

The development of scientific understanding and control tech- 
nology has lagged far behind the scientific and technological develop- 
ment that has generated many of the environmental problems facing 


us. Policies are unclear and sometimes contradictory. Institutional 
arrangements make management and control difficult. A balance be- 
tween public well-being, resource use, institutional interests, pollution 
control, economic concerns, and life style is difficult to achieve. Politi- 
cal, social, legal, economic, and technical issues must be formulated 
and resolved. This means that in addition to achievement of technical 
knowledge and competence, there is the challenge posed by political, 
social, legal, and economic aspects, which also requires a high degree 
of competence if we are to move to rational policy development and 
program implementation. 

All of this is the framework that encompassed environmental sci- 
ence. Putting things in perspective, it has meant that the varying 
constituencies of educational institutions, existing and potential, must 
view environmental science as encompassing natural resource preser- 
vation and management, environmental pollution control, and the 
major technical and social growth issues. It is a tall order for any 
college or university to respond to adequately. However, the challenge 
can and must come. 

The role of natural and social scientists in and beyond the colleges 
and universities is vital to the effort to advance scientific and techno- 
logical knowledge of environmental science, and to assist in develop- 
ing sound policy and programs through education and research. The 
proud record of our predecessors has attested to this and challenges 
us to emulate their fine work in a concerted fashion. 

It seems to me as clear as anything can be that this country has 
to change its ways relative to our environment. These changes must 
include governmental policy, educational training and research, and 
economic and commercial consideration. Our nation has failed to 
formulate consensus policies in the resolution of almost any of its 
major physical problems. Thus, incongruencies abound. Here we are, 
a nation that has just completed the construction of the most elabo- 
rate and finest national highway system in the world, just at the time 
we run out of gas. It is a nation that has built the finest network of 
air transport with state-of-the-art equipment, and airports that are 
nothing short of magnificent, all just at the time we are running out 
of oil. And in our efforts to postpone or resolve the energy crisis, we 
are shifting emphasis to coal as a source of energy, just at the time, 
of course, that we have let the railroad beds and railroad equipment 
that haul it become obsolete, and have allowed our rail transport sys- 
tem to become completely bankrupt. 

Our major shortcoming is the inability to integrate the skills and 
the superb scientific knowledge that we possess, whether in the pro- 
fessional specialty of forestry, in professional specialities of medicine, 
of business management, of government, or almost anything one can 
name. "Coordination" has been read out of our lexicon, and "co- 
operation" has come to mean "one-way street.'] We must return to 
those fine concepts and learn better, in our society, how to wed the 
efforts and the skills of industry, government, and education into a 
much more cooperative system, or this nation is likely to waste its 
fabulous resources, and like a meteor, have one brief brilliant moment 
in the sky of time, and then pass into decline and outer darkness. 



[By K. F. S. King, Assistant Director-General, Food and Agriculture 
Organization of the United Nations] 

The world has changed rapidly and significantly over the last three 
decades or so, indeed ever since the end of the Second World War. 
There has been, in this relatively short period, an unprecedented in- 
crease m the world's population. There has been developed an entirely 
new concern for human development and economic growth. There 
have been significant and pervasive advances in science and in tech- 
nology. There lias grown to be a predilection, some might say an 
obsession, with the environment. 

Mr. Chairman, the world has always had to accommodate, or has 
had to resolve, to reconcile, conflicting emotions, conflicting objec- 
tives^ conflicting ideals. These conflicts must exist, and will continue 
to exist, so long as man is allowed freedom of thought, freedom of 
choice, and freedom of action. Indeed, it might be argued that man- 
kind's progress upon this earth depends upon peaceful conflict, upon 
the clash of views, upon the resolution of differences of opinion. 

I venture to suggest, however, that at no time in the world's history 
has there been so intense a mixture of idealism and materialism, of 
nationalism and internationalism, of conservatism and liberalism, of 
hope and despair. These antithetic forces are to be found within na- 
tions, within groups which have in the past been noted for their uni- 
formity of thought, within strata of societies which traditionally 
possessed common aims, common objectwes, common desires. 

I mention these internal problems, and I emphasize the changing 
circumstances we have experienced over the last thirty years, for one 
important reason. I wish to stress that although I am to discuss with 
you, today, the subject of "perspectives in world forestry", it cannot 
be considered in a vacuum. It cannot be examined in isolation. Today, 
the burning questions of forest^ must be analysed within a global, 
inter-disciplinary context. "World forestry" cannot be regarded 
merely from a narrow, sectoral point of view. It must be looked at 
against a background of the international demand for forest products 
and the world's capacity to supply the wood raw material ; it must be 
looked at within the context of general land-use policies, plans, and 
practices; it must be looked at with a full appreciation of existing 
and future patterns of world trade ; it must be looked at with a knowl- 
edge of the scientific and technological advances which are being- 
made, and which will probably be "made, not only in the forestry 
and forest industries sector, but in all relevant aspects of economic 
activity. The gamut of economic, social, political, scientific and tech- 
nological considerations must be taken into account. 



I merely draw your attention to the necessity for a catholic ap- 
proach to our subject. I hope that you will understand that I cannot, 
in the time at my disposal, adequately cover the desired range. I shall 
attempt to pose the main issues, to point to the strengths and weak- 
nesses of our current approaches, to suggest fields of endeavour on 
which we might concentrate in the future, and to paint a picture, 
sketch the outlines, of what I consider world forestry would look like 
at the end of this century. 

Since the end of the last World War x the world's population has 
grown by about 60 percent. As a result, there have been, almost liter- 
ally, fantastic increases in the demand for food, for fuel, and for 
industrial wood and wood products. Unfortunately, tropical food sup- 
plies have, in general, failed to keep pace with or to outstrip popula- 
tion growth. In addition, because of the growing exposure of tropical 
communities to a money economy, arable land formerly devoted to 
food crops has been transferred to the seemingly more lucrative pur- 
suit of the raising of perennial cash crops. However, productivity 
from the areas remaining to the food producers has often not in- 
creased enough to compensate for this loss of land. The result is, 
in so far as the developing countries are concerned, a combination of 
diminishing arable land and increasing population, which leads in- 
evitably to human suffering. 

In order to provide more and more land for food production^ some 
tropical forests are indiscriminately razed to the ground. This is un- 
fortuned te not only because wood supplies are being thoughtlessly 
reduced, but also because in many cases the soil protection and water 
regulatory roles of the forests are diminished. When it is remembered 
that the placing of more land under agriculture frequently leads to 
increased demands for water, and more particularly for controlled 
supplies of water, this ravaging of the forests takes on an additional 
dimension of horror. 

Side by side with the increased rate of population growth has been 
a sustained expansion (except for the last year or two) of the world's 
economic activities. This is extremely significant for the forestry and 
forest industries sector. Even before the price of fuel was so drastically 
increased, the developing countries consumed vast amounts of fuel- 
wood. Indeed, by volume, this was the largest single entity of forest 
products utilized in these countries. Today, the bulk of the people in 
the poorer countries must rely, and in the foreseeable future must con- 
tinue to rely, on wood as the main, if not the sole, source of energy for 
cooking and heating. 

In addition to this growth in demand for a traditional wood product, 
there is a growing consumption, in the developing countries, of wood 
for use in the round, for sawn-wood, for wood-based panel products 
and for paper. 

Moreover, the developing countries have come to understand the 
significant role which the forests, forestry and forest industries can 
play in the attack on economic underdevelopment. They now know 
that the sector can help them to save and earn foreign exchange ; that 
it has high forward and backward linkage indices, and that therefore, 

1 This analysis of the effects of the changing world circumstances on forestry relies 
almost entirely on King, K. F. S. (1972) A Summary of the Revised FAO Studif on Forpst 
Policy, Laic and Administration. Seventh World Forestry Congress, Buenos Aires, 1972. 


the expansion of forestry and forest industries can act as a stimulating 
force for many other economic activities ; that the practice of forestry 
and the establishment of forest industries can create significant em- 
ployment opportunities, particularly in the depressed, often neglected, 
rural areas ; and that there is certainly some type of forest industries 
suitable for establishment in almost any developing country. 

We have therefore a situation, in the development economies, in 
which a resource — the forests — which is known to be capable of 
assisting greatly in economic development, is very frequently 
destroyed. It is destroyed to provide land for shifting or for perma- 
nent agriculture. It is destroyed to provide land for the production of 
food, without which many of the world's inhabitants would die or 
live a life of permanent under-nourishment. This, I submit, is one of 
the main problems of development in the developing world. This ap- 
parent conflict in the demand for land by the agriculturists, on the one 
hand, and by the foresters, on the other. This sacrifice of a deA'elop- 
mental resource, of an industrial base, of an ecosystem which reduces 
the incidence of erosion, regulates water supplies, and tempers the 
micro-climate, for food which is the very basis of life, which provides 
the sustenance for man to work and for him to enjo}- a modicum of 
physical and spiritual well-being. 

In the developed regions per capita incomes have increased by more 
than 100 percent since 1945. This has led, not only to changing patterns 
of wood consumption, but also to a greater pressure on the forests for 
their services, for their non-wood values. 

In the developed world, the demand for the less sophisticated types 
of wood products has declined. However, the increase in consumption 
of wood-based panels and of pulp and paper has been more than 
compensatory. Over all, it has been estimated that by 1985 world 
demand for wood for industrial processing would be more than twice 
as high as it was as recently as 1970, and that most of the additional 
volume will be consumed in the developed countries. (These calcu- 
lations were made before the onslaught of the energy crisis.) 

At this moment, the effect of the higher price of energy on the future 
consumption of wood and wood products in the developed countries 
cannot be accurately judged. This much can be said, however. It ap- 
pears to be reasonably certain that wood products can be. and will be, 
more competitive with those substitutes for wood and wood products 
which utilise petroleum as the raw material base, and which appeared, 
say, five years ago, to be capable of absorbing a significant proportion 
of the wood market. It can also be said that if the levels of economic 
activity in the industrialised world are to be maintained (and there are 
already signs that they will be), the demand for wood and wood 
products will be sustained. Indeed, our work in the interna tional 
agencies of the United Nations suggests that demand for wood will in- 
crease in the developed countries. The pressures on the forests of the 
developed world, for wood, will therefore be even greater than they 
have been in the past. 

One consequence, in developed economies, of their rapid economic 
growth has been a growing awareness, by the general public, of the 
services which forests offer, and of the~ polluting effects of forest 
industries on the environment. 

Rising incomes, better inf rastructional facilities, improved mobility, 
more leisure time, and the severe emotional and mental stresses of 


industrial societies have combined to create not only an interest in the 
non-wood values of the forests, but also to increase demands for their 
recreative use. In addition, the effluent which emanates from pulp and 
paper mills, the pollution of the atmosphere which sometimes results 
from the conversion of wood and wood products, the debris and waste 
which frequently accumulate from wood harvesting and wood conver- 
sion, and the impact of factories on the scenic beauty of the country- 
side, are all now fiercely condemned. As a result, in almost all of the 
developed countries, legislation has been enacted to control pollution, 
to conserve the aesthetic values of the forests, to zone the siting of 
factories, to prevent or control the felling of trees in certain areas, 
and so on. 

There is little need to discuss the legislation in detail. In recent 
years, in the United States alone, the spate and range of conservation 
legislation has been remarkable. They are all certainly familiar to 
you, and a few examples will suffice; the Multiple Use-Sustained 
Yield Act of 1960, P.L. 86-517; the Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat, 
890) ; tha National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, P.L. 91-90 ; and 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, P.L. 93-205. 

Almost all restrict the maximisation of the production of wood from 
specific types of forests. All can, in the long run, affect, the establish- 
ment and expansion of forest industries, the absorption of labour, the 
level of profits, the general growth of the economy, and the traditional 
systems of practising forestry. 

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, as most people in this audience will know, at 
the end of August, this year, the United States Fourth Circuit Court 
of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, ruled that trees in one of the 
National Forests in West Virginia cannot be harvested unless they are 
"dead, mature or of large growth", and unless they have been individu- 
ally marked for cutting. As a result, the U.S. Department of Agricul- 
ture stated that it would not offer any more National Forest timber for 
sale in nine National Forests in Virginia, West Virginia, North 
Carolina and South Carolina until it decides its next step. 

Therefore, it seems obvious that the problem of forest land-use in 
the developed countries is similar, in effect, to that of the developing 
world. In both cases, it seems inevitable that there will be a significant 
shrinkage, a significant reduction of the productive forest estate. In the 
developing countries efforts must be made to meet the iust and rational 
demands of the agriculturist as well as the forester. In the developed 
countries means must be found of accommodating the just and 
rational demands of the conservationist, the environmentalist, as well 
as the production forester and the forest industrialist. 

It used to be strongly argued (and there is still some validity in 
the argument for some places and for some types of combination) that 
multiple-use forestry * is the answer to the conflicting demands for 
forest land. It is now recognised, however, that although it is possible 
to optimise the production of various "packages" of forest goods and 
services, the maximisation of all the individual, single, goods and 
services which emanate from a forest cannot be attained. There has to 
be a trade-off. Use priorities have to be established. In the multiple-use 
package there has to be a dominant use. 

1 The conscious and deliberate use of forest land for the concurrent production of more 
than one good or services. Gregory, G. R. (1955). Forest Science 1 (1). 


Moreover, in many countries, the consumers are demanding, and the 
legislators are supporting their demands, that more forests be reserved 
for single-use. non-wood forestry, usually for recreation, amenity, 
aesthetics. Indeed, these demands are not confined to the developed 
countries. In some parts of Latin America, for example, this is already 
a discernible trend. It is also not confined to recreation forestry. In 
the Guatope National Park, near Caracas in Venezuela, and in the 
Cantareira State Park near Sao Paulo in Brazil, the forests are man- 
aged solely for their water supplies. 

Therefore. I repeat that if the non-wood services of the forests are to 
be supplied to the populace of the various countries, and if the need 
for more agricultural produce is to be met, then production forests 
will have to be confined to a smaller area than they now occupy. It fol- 
lows from this, that if the increasing demands for wood and Avood 
products are also to be fulfilled, there must be increased wood and 
wood fibre productivity. There must be more efficient wood harvesting 
and conversion methods, and a more rational utilisation of the forests 
and the wood resources which flow from them. 

You will forgive me, I hope, if I say that the practice of forestry and 
forest industries in both the developed and developing countries is. 
in general, inefficient, though at varying levels of inefficiency. (This is 
also true of tropical agriculture, but this topic need not detain us here.) 
Let us consider first, briefly the condition of forestry in the develop- 
ing, tropical countries. We do not know exactly what species are in 
the moist tropical high forests, what quantities, what distribution 
what growth rates. We do not know how the forests, as a whole, or the 
individual species in various types of forests, would react to different 
types of silvicultural and management systems. "We do not know 
how best to regenerate naturally those species for which there is com- 
mercial demand. We do not know the utilisable qualities of many of 
those species we are aware exist in the forests. We cannot say with 
confidence whether mixed tropical hardwoods, from any region in the 
world, can be converted into pulp for paper. We do not know the 
effect of forest plantations on tropical soils, and whether those soils 
are capable of sustaining more than one rotation. We are certainly not 
utilising the best seed sources for tropical plantations, the best 

Our harvesting methods are primitive, costly and wasteful. So also 
are the systems we employ to convert the wood into primary products. 
In many countries, species that are known to be marketable, and 
that are in great supply, are either not utilised, or are burnt as weeds, 
because, for example, the silica content of the wood is high. 

This list of the woes of tropical forestry is not exhaustive. How- 
ever, it illustrates not merely our lack of knowledge, but our failure 
even to adapt what knowledge is available to the prevailing 

The position with regard to forestry in developed countries varies 
only in degree. When I allege that forestry in the developed world 
is inefficient, I mean the allegation to be understood in relation to the 
advances made in comparable fields. Accordingly, rather than list 
the deficiencies that are inherent in the practice of forestry in the 
developed countries, examples will be given of the possibilities for 
research and for improving practices, in order to increase forest 


yields. Much of what will be said, in this regard, will be applicable 
to both the developed and the developing countries. 

Although much work has been done on tree improvement in recent 
years, more emphasis needs to be placed on the breeding of genotypes 
that will be suitable for growth on difficult sites. In addition, there is 
a considerable lack of knowledge, throughout the profession, concern- 
ing the predictable interactions of site, genotype and cultural treat- 
ment, and their combined effect on yield. 

Another area of allied research which might prove profitable, is 
related to the possibility of breeding for different characteristics at 
different developmental stages of the crop. If I may be permitted to 
give tropical examples to illustrate a general point. A phenotype like 
Maesepsis eminii, which possesses a high ratio of crown diameter to 
bole diameter, might be bred and utilised for rapid weed suppression 
and site domination during the early stages of the crop. This species 
may then be gradually replaced by a phenotype such as Eucalyptus 
grandis which possesses a low ratio of crown diameter to bole di- 
ameter, and thus will give a higher yield per unit area, and utilise the 
site more efficiently. 

More research should also be pursued on the vegetative propagation 
of those species that are now normally propagated by seed. The point 
is easily appreciated if the advantages enjoyed by poplars in the easy 
rooting of cuttings are compared with the disadvantages of seed 
orchards. Indeed, there appears to be an inverse correlation between 
the seed production of individual genotypes and their potential for 
producing high quantities and high qualities of wood. The cheap 
and easy use of cuttings in establishing plantations would enable 
foresters to eschew the compromise between seed production and wood 
production, and use exclusively sterile elites. 

We have not yet begun to examine the full potential of forest fertili- 
sation, and the results of the influence of the faster growth which is 
attendant on fertilisation on spacing, and tending practices. The same 
is true of our knowledge of the optimum combination of cultural tech- 
niques in the nursery. In the last twenty years we have not succeeded 
(if the practice of forestry is taken as a whole and isolated examples 
ignored) in significantly reducing the period spent by seedlings in the 
nursery, and of improving, again significantly, the survival and early 
growth of plants in the field. We have not taken full advantage of the 
use of auxins, for example, as a means of increasing the efficiency of 
seedling production, although much progress has been made by the 
horticulturists, in this area. The application of greenhouse techniques 
to forest seedling production has also not been seriously and fully 

Although in the temperate countries the problems of seed storage 
may not be of great importance, they are of particular significance in 
the moist tropics. Because there is no winter, and in some cases no real 
dry season, there is no dormancy. As a consequence, the period of seed 
viability is short. Can dormancy be induced artificially ? This question 
is of more than academic interest. The fact that the seeds of many 
tropical species have short periods of viability, imposes severe limi- 
tations on the use of such species as exotics, even though, like the Araa- 
carias, they may possess a high production potential. 


Our work en all aspects of improving wood productivity in the 
developed countries has been too diffuse. It is not the problems have not 
been appreciated. It is not even that the methodologies and techniques 
for solving them are unknown. It is that the approach has been hap- 
hazard and unplanned. Our activity in these areas of forest production 
has been extensive and desultory. Foresters in developing countries 
practise forestry as the early tribes gathered their food — as a nomadic, 
selective, slow, nit-picking exercise. Foresters in developed countries 
practise forestry as the very early agriculturists must have done just 
after they had ceased to be wanderers and hunters, as they must have 
operated in the early days of the domestication of crops and animals. 

What I have said about wood production can be applied also to wood 
harvesting and wood conversion. In the developed countries, on aver- 
age, about 40 per cent of the wood available in a cut-over forest remains 
unutilised. In the developing countries the proportion wasted is even 
higher. Much has been written about this. The subject is well docu- 
mented. The technology and practises to reduce waste are known. The 
time is not too far distant, as I hope that I have demonstrated, when 
the knowledge which exists must be applied. The implementation of 
the environmental laws, and the pressures on the forests from other 
land-users, will permit nothing less. The conservations will force the 
production foresters and the forest industries experts to be as efficient 
as they are capable. 

One last group of research activities, that is relevant to our times, 
is worthy of our consideration. Let us first consider the forests as a 
source of chemicals, polymers and liquid fuels, as a source of those 
supplies now obtainable mainly from fossils. It is said by some that we 
are at the beginning of the end of the petroleum era. Be that as it may, 
it is my conviction that the time is ripe for us to re-evaluate the possi- 
bilities of producing chemicals or even oils from wood residues. Re- 
search in this field was interrupted after the Second World War be- 
cause it was difficult to compete with the petrochemical industry. 
However, the situation is now somewhat changed, and a great number 
of chemicals, now manufactured by the petro-chemical industry, might 
with profit be produced from wood through further development of 
the existing technology. The generation of energy from wood residues, 
either as such, or after pyrolysis to produce liquid fuel, is another 

Other prospects exist in the utilisation of waste liquors from the 
pulp industry, especially from acid or neutral processes, for the manu- 
facture of marketable products such as protein, lignosulphonic acids 
and glues for the particle board and plywood industries. Indeed, some 
of this is now being done, but on a small scale. Efforts should be made 
for the conversion of these small-scale operations to large-scale 

A few commercial plants for the utilisation of part of the carbo- 
hydrates in wood residues for the manufacture of wood sugar (xlitol) 
or furfural are in production. A further development could be the 
utilisation of the residue of these processes (which amounts to about 
70 per cent of the wood material) to manufacture phenols and liquid 

In the exploitation of the forest, the foliage is, almost always, com- 
pletely neglected. However, the experimental evidence available sug- 


gests that the leaves of forest trees may be converted into high-quality 
animal fodder, and to a wide range of chemicals with a potential use 
in medicine and in the cosmetic industry. 

If I may be permitted to turn to another aspect of potential devel- 
opment in the use of wood. For a long time now, we have to some 
extent altered and improved the natural properties of wood — for 
example, in the plywood, flbreboard and particle board industries. 
Over the years, these generic types of products have been diversified 
to such an extent, that the boundaries of the various types of panels 
have become blurred, and the old definitions no longer fit the new 
realities. The predominant tendency, nowadays, is to produce ma- 
terials with properties that are engineered to pre-determined end-use 
requirements. Indeed, the first boards with oriented particles have 
already entered the market. We seem to be at the beginning of a long 
road which teems with exciting possibilities. The engineering of wood 
now implies a synthesis of various wood components (particles, fibres, 
fibre bundles, strands, flakes) and non-wood components (plastics, 
metals, minerals) to produce entirely new types of product. The num- 
ber of possibilities for new product combinations may be of the order 
of 3,000. If research and developmental activities are concentrated, and 
if our approach is truly innovative, a nryriad of new products could 
be developed to meet the specifications we, or our customers, have 
established. Each such product would result in the saving of wood 
raw material. 

An old, but still interesting, possibility is the production of board 
materials and mouldings from wood particles without glue additives. 
The main feature of such a process would, of course, be the activation 
of the lignin of broad-leaved wood particles in a sealed space. The 
lignin so activated would be used as a bonding material. It is reported 
that a new flbreboard mill using the dry method of production, with- 
out the addition of synthetic bonding materials, is in the final stages 
of construction in Czechoslovakia. In addition, research on a small 
scale is being conducted throughout the world. The research covers 
various aspects of different processes that are based on lignin 

Another long-standing problem of mechanical wood industries, 
namely, the reduction of residues, has been considerably alleviated by 
the development of residue-based technologies and products. Never- 
theless, research aimed at reducing the residues of the mechanical 
wood conversion industries should be stepped up. The further refine- 
ment of our work on the Laser cutting of wood materials, the chemical 
modification of wood properties through, for example, the use of 
propylene oxide, butylen oxide, and epichlorohydrin, and the re- 
cycling of forest materials retrieved from urban waste, should be 

Mr. Chairman, these are but a few of the areas of research which 
appear to me to offer opportunities for increasing the biological pro- 
ductivity of our forests, for increasing the volume of the wood which 
we extract from those forests, and for utilising that wood in a most 
efficient way. 

You will recall the central thesis of this paper. In the future, in 
both the developed and the developing countries, the pressures on 
forest land will be so great, that the areas to be devoted to productive 


forestry will be reduced. The allocation of land to productive forestry, 
indeed to any form of land-use, should, of course, be based on land 
capacity surveys, and on an assessment of the social, economic and 
political effects of other competing uses. It is reasonable to assume, 
however, and no matter how rational the approach, the productive 
forest estate will diminish. In order to meet the growing demand for 
wood and wood products, we must therefore increase our productivity. 
We can do this, but much effort in research and development will have 
to be made. 

It is, I think, inevitable that most of this research will be carried 
out in the developed countries, in which are to be found the knowl- 
edge, the facilities and the capital for such work. Much of the work 
done in the developed countries can possibly be transferred to the 
developing world. It is likely, however, that because of differing 
physical and socio-economic conditions, much of it, in the form in 
which it was conceived and executed, cannot be transposed willy-nilly. 

If the developed countries wish to help the developing countries in 
these matters (and I would suggest that in forestry and forest indus- 
tries there is an inherent inter-dependence), then the form of aid 
should be in the methodologies to be applied in research and develop- 
ment, in the approach to problem solving which has been so well devel- 
oped in the United States, for example. Where technology per se is 
to be transferred, it should be adapted to the physical and social 
conditions of the recipient country. 

If these things are done, I see in perspective, at the end of this 
century and in the early years of the twenty-first century, a pattern 
of forest deployment in the developed countries in which forest areas, 
particularly (but not exclusively) around the cities or within easy 
access of them, are set aside for single-use recreational forestry. Other 
areas, more remote, of the wilderness type will provide similar serv- 
ices. Yet others will be utilised for conservation, for their protective 
and recreational functions, e.g. areas on steep slopes. The greatly 
reduced productive forest areas will be mainly plantations and will 
be surrounded by landscaped, irremovable forests to maintain the 
scenic beauty, and to hide the scars of forest exploitation. 

Within these productive forest activity will be intense, and yields 
will be achieved that bear no comparison with those obtained today. 
The industries based on these productive forests will be more varied 
in type, very much less wasteful, very much more efficient. 

In the developing countries, the pressure for more environmental 
forestry will have just begun. More forests will be set aside specifically 
for the control of erosion and for the regulation of water supplies. 
Those soils now under forests which are capable of sustaining agri- 
cultural crops will be permanently dedicated to food production, and 
the forests now covering them will have been removed. In areas of 
intense population pressure, but where the forest soils are not in- 
herently fertile, the system of agri-sylviculture, in which forest 
plantations are inter-cropped with food crops for short periods, will 
be practised. As in the developed countries, the productive forest area 
will be reduced, but more will be extracted from those areas than is 
now being taken out of the existing, all pervasive tropical forests. 
Forest plantations will be the predominant formation in productive 
forestry. Considerably more wood will be processed in these countries, 


but the range and intensity of forest industrial activities will be con- 
siderably smaller than those in the developed countries. 

I could not resist some crystal gazing. But the reason for looking 
into the future was not merely to engage in the futuristic pastimes 
that have become so much a part of the modern world. The reason 
was to convey to you my conviction that there is no real conflict 
between environmental and production forestry, no real clash of in- 
terests between agriculture and forestry. All can be accommodated, if 
we apply ourselves to the solution of the problems which now face us. 
We must understand that many aspects of land-use are comple- 
mentary and not in antagonism. We must understand that there are 
many mansions in the firmament. 


[By George R. Bagley, President, National Association of Conservation Districts] 

Although water, forage, and minerals are certainly three of the 
basic natural resources of the nation, you do not ordinarily see them 
put together as the combined subject matter of a single paper. They 
have distinctive characteristics. Forage is a renewable resource. Min- 
erals are non-renewable. And the supply of water is replenished an- 
nually in fairly consistent amounts, primarily by rains and snow. 

Nevertheless, there are some common ties that provide good reason 
for grouping the three resources on this particular occasion. 

First, of course, they are all affected in major ways by the manage- 
ment of forests and their associated rangelands. The arithmetic of 
land use bears out the point. Forests occupy some 754 million acres, or 
approximately one-third of the 2.3 billion acres of land in the United 
States. The policies guiding the management of such a large seg- 
ment of the nation's land are certain to have a profound effect on water 
supplies, forage quality, and mineral production. 

Second, there can be no doubt about the need for water, forage, and 
minerals. Every responsible study of recent years has pointed to the 
increasing requirements of the next quarter-century — and beyond. 

Third, we are not yet moving in any deliberate way, as a nation, to 
meet the oncoming needs. 

Fourth, we are being crippled in our ability to prepare for the future 
by a widespread distortion of values : a lengthening shelf of new laws 
accompanied by excessive regulations: and the concentration of a 
majority of our population in urban centers where the people are pre- 
occupied with urban problems such as housing, transportation, and 

To enlarge a bit on the previous point. I believe too many Americans 
have forgotten — or were never taught to realize — that natural re- 
sources are the original source of all our wealth. The commodities from 
our lands and waters, and the materials extracted from them, are the 
foundation on which all the rest of our service-oriented economy is 
built. "When we neglect this foundation, or downgrade it, we eventually 
invite the most serious kind of trouble. 

Further, since I have had the daring to put in a good word for re- 
source development, production, and the wealth that can be derived 
from it, I want to emphasize another fact of the real world. 

As Americans, we cherish our freedom above all else. We cherish our 
Bill of Rights. Yet there can be no freedom, political or otherwise, with- 
out economic independence. A family without a job. without income, 
without the money to buy food, clothing, and shelter, is not a free 
family. It is a dependent family — a family obligated either to charity 
or the state. 



In some cases, of course, this cannot be avoided because, most un- 
fortunately, there are always those among our neighbors who are 
blind, or ill, or otherwise incapacitated. 

But my feeling is that most Americans want a job, want to earn a 
living on the merit of their own work and capabilities, and have the 
feeling of freedom that is possible only with a reasonable measure of 
economic security. 

Directly or indirectly, jobs and economic security for the families 
of America depend on the production from natural resources. Unless 
we are producing corn and copper, lumber and beef, and all the other 
commodities and materials essential to a growing society, there is 
nothing to transport, process, manufacture, and sell. There is no com- 
merce or industry. There is no wealth — no money — to pay for doctors 
or musicians, schools, pro football, or leisurely trips into the 

The point of my disgression is to express my concern about the trend 
in recent years to shift the emphasis in forest management away from 
timber, mineral, and livestock production. More and more attention 
is being given to recreation. More and more public forest land is being 
withdrawn from timber, mineral, and grazing use and reserved for 
wilderness, parks, and scenic areas. 

There appear to be increasing commitments to single-purpose rec- 
reational uses and a retreat from former policies that stressed multiple 
uses and sustained yields. 

It is not my purpose to minimize the importance of recreation to 
the American people, or to suggest that the public and private forest 
lands of the nation cannot accommodate a substantial expansion of 
recreational uses. Such an expansion is both practical and desirable. 
But recreation and production are not always mutually exclusive, and 
it is my hope that we can arrive at a forest policy that achieves a 
rational balance of these sometimes conflicting uses. 

More intensive management of forests and their associated range- 
lands is clearly one of the essentials in meeting our oncoming needs, 
not only for timber and recreation, but for water, forage, and minerals. 
These latter needs are of very substantial proportions. It is incon- 
ceivable, in my view, that the United States can meet them without 
major contributions possible through intensive management of the 
forests and rangelands. 


The facts and prospects pertaining to water are familiar, I am sure, 
to everyone here. Our annual replenishment of water by precipitation 
is fairly constant at about 30 inches as a nationwide average. This is 
not a particularly meaningful figure, however, because the distribution 
of rain and snow is so uneven. Many areas of the West get an average 
of about ten inches a year, while other localities receive up to 100 

Moreover, we don't get to use all the precipitation that falls. Nearly 
a third of it is lost through evaporation. Somewhat more than another 
third is transpired back into the atmosphere through our crops and 
forests. The other nine inches, says USDA's Economic Research 
Service, is natural runoff and is considered the renewable supply each 
year. It amounts to about 1.2 trillion gallons a day which accumulates 
in our lakes, streams, and rivers. 


In addition, we have groundwater reserves equal to about 30 years 
of runoff, but this is also unevenly distributed throughout the country 
and in some sections is being severely depleted by heavy pumping. 

What about the future? In its 1968 National Water Assessment, the 
U.S. Water Resources Council projected that withdrawals from the 
annual renewable supply would rise to 37 percent by 1980 and to 67 
percent in the year 2000. Back in 1965 they were estimated at 22 

Withdrawal uses, says ERS, "include water for public supplies, 
irrigation, rural use, self -supplied industrial use, and water power." 

Consumptive uses of water are also expected to rise. These are the 
uses which include water discharged into the atmosphere or used by 
growing plants, in food processing, or incidental to an industrial 

Since the First National Water Assessment, the water outlook has 
been altered considerably by two new national programs: (1) the 
effort to move the U.S. closer to self-sufficiency in energy, and (2) the 
drive to clean up pollution, including a reduction in the annual sedi- 
ment load, from America's waters. 

President Ford has set out a goals program for the coming decade 
which includes the construction of 200 major nuclear plants, 250 
major new coal mines, 150 major coal-fired plants, 30 major new oil 
refineries, and 20 major new synthetic fuel plants. Needless to say, 
the production of energy requires very large amounts of water. 

All along the line, the requirements ahead for water appear to be 
rising. The situation means that all of us, as a nation, and in every 
walk of life, will find it necessary to give more attention to the sup- 
plies, qualitj^, re-use, distribution, and the timing of the distribution of 
water — wherever we are. 

One of the avenues to additional water yield and availability is in 
the improved management of forests and associated rangelands. I am 
not a forester, but it occurs to me immediately that this could result 
in greater insoak for groundwater recharge, as well as a reduction in 
wasteful and destructive flash runoff of storm waters. Greater atten- 
tion to insect and disease control as well as more effective fire preven- 
tion would help. As I understand the possibilities, manipulation of 
the forest canopy and eradication of water-loving plants of low eco- 
nomic value would also make contributions. Another important value 
of more intensive management would be greater protection of 
reservoirs against destructive silting. 


As in the case of water, there are a variety of reasons to expect a 
substantial rise in the national need for forage in the years immedi- 
ately ahead. Also as in the case of water, I believe American forest 
poli'cv should be framed to help accommodate this increased need. 

It is pertinent here to quote rather extensively from the work of Dr. 
Harlow J. Hodgson, Principal Agronomist for the Cooperation State 
Research Service, and widely regarded as an outstanding authority 
in the field of forage. 

In an address during the annual meeting of the Society for Range 
Management last year, Dr. Hodgson said : 


"Numerous projections have been made regarding future increases 
in red meat consumption in the United States. These average around 
2 pounds per capita per year until 1985, a total of about 24 pounds per 
capita above 1972 levels. A few projections call for much higher 
levels . . . Nearly all this increase is expected to be beef. Whether 
these projections are realized will depend mostly upon the supply of 
slaughter animals, the most important factor in determining price. 
Retail price will be the most important factor in determining de- 
mand. ..." 

Later, in the same address, Dr. Hodgson declared : 

"It is instructive to translate projected per capita demand for beef 
into cattle numbers and total forage demand. Each 1 pound per capita 
increase in consumption requires about 400,000 cows to provide the 
slaughter animals for 210,000,000 pounds of beef. . . These cows and 
their calves require the forage from about 2 million acres of forage 
producing land, assuming a national average of 5 acres per cow/calf 

"To provide 24 pounds of additional beef per capita by 1985, 9.6 mil- 
lion more beef cows will be needed. Furthermore, an expected 10 per- 
cent increase in population by 1985 adds another 4 to 5 million cows for 
a total of about 14 million. This amounts to an increase of about 30 
percent over present numbers. Using our average of 5 acres per cow/ 
calf unit, the equivalent of 70 million acres of forage producing land 
will be required to feed this number of cows and calves. Or we could 
increase productivity by 50 percent on some 140 million acres. This is 
a fairly sizeable task." 

In an article in Science Review in 1968, Dr. Hodgson underscored 
the critical importance of forage in the production of beef cattle. 
He said : 

"Only about one-fourth of the beef cattle in the country in any one 
year are in feedlots and are consuming high-grain rations. About 
three-fourths are breeding animals, calves, etc., which receive about 92 
percent of their feed units from forage. This ratio probably will de- 
crease only slightly over time and could reverse with higher price feed 
grains. Therefore, for every additional animal in the feedlot we need 
about three more in breeding herds, etc. . . . Two things are clear. We 
will need vastly increased outputs of forage production in the next 
two decades. The greatest portion of this forage will be fed to beef 

"Rangelands in top condition," Dr. Hodgson continued, "can sup- 
port the greatest number of grazing animals consistent with resource 
conservation. The more animals that can be maintained on the land, 
the less is the problem of disposing of animal wastes. ... If animals 
could be kept on range or other grazing land for even one extra month, 
our waste disposal problems would be substantially reduced. 

Aside from the increased forage needs for beef production, as set 
forth by Dr. Hodgson, there are additional reasons why greater at- 
tention to forage will be vital in the years ahead. Whether we are 
thinking of grasslands in the East or rangelands in the West, im- 
proved cover and better management of these lands is going to be 
important in terms of watershed protection, recreation, wildlife habi- 


tat, and the reduction of the sediment load flowing into our lakes, 
streams, and rivers. 

These forage lands are enormously valuable to our society, our en- 
vironment, and our economy. They deserve better treatment than 
they have been getting. While they have not been altogether neglected 
in the past, neither have they received the kind of sustained attention 
their present and potential contributions warrant. 

As a general statement, referring to the state of forage lands as a 
whole, it would probably not be far wrong to say they have played 
second fiddle to croplands and to forests. 

Insofar as these forage lands are associated with forests and with 
forest policy, they should be regarded as a major element in policy 
projections for the future. 

There would be a sizeable body of public support for such an up- 
grading of attention to forage. I am thinking, for example, of my 
own organization, the National Association of Conservation Districts. 
I am thinking of the American National Cattlemen's Association, the 
several dairy organizations, the Society for Kange Management, and 
the major farm organizations. I should think the consumers of the 
country, and their organizations, would applaud forage improvement 
that would lead to more stable supplies and better prices for the animal 
products coming from the nation's pastures and ranges. 

There is a large array of treatments, technologies and management 
practices that are waiting to be applied. There are improved plant 
varieties that can be used to increase both the number of animals that 
can be grazed and the meat output per animal. There are grazing sys- 
tems, developed by careful research. There are a host of management 
practices, such as brush and noxious weed control, water development, 
seeding, water spreading, timber thinning, fertilization, and insect 
and disease control. 

The catalogue of constructive actions is large, if we would only 
choose to make greater use of it. The task of upgrading 665 million 
acres of pasture and rangeland is huge, but over a period of time it can 
only be reflected in gains for America, in terms of jobs, land use, health, 
production, pollution abatement, wildlife, water supply, and the beauty 
of the American countryside. 


The best that can be said about our mineral position right now is 
that it is a supreme headache. We are nowhere near self-sufficient in a 
number of the most critical metals. We import 98 percent of the cobalt 
we use, 91 percent of the chromium, 88 percent of the aluminum ores 
and metal, 86 percent of the platinum and tin, and 82 percent of the 
mercury. We are also heavy importers of asbestos, nickel, gold, silver, 
and zinc. 

For many years, the United States was the world's leading producer 
of steel, which is often considered a key commodity in measuring a 
nation's productive capacity. Last year we dropped behind Kussia in 
steel production and barely managed to stay ahead of Japan. 

Data from the U.S. Bureau of Mines show that in 1950 the U.S. pro- 
duced 47 percent of the world's steel. Last year we produced 19 per- 
cent. In 1950 we produced 44 percent of the world's aluminum. By last 
year our output amounted to 35 percent of the world total. 


Meanwhile, mineral consumption throughout the world is increasing 
more rapidly than in the United States, and experts are quick to point 
out that this is accentuating the competition for raw materials in the 
world markets. 

The ore bodies of the earth are non-renewable. In other words, 
exhaustible. When we — the United States and the rest of the world — 
have consumed them to a point where supplies no longer meet the 
needs, then we are in trouble. Substitutes are not always readily avail- 
able. Professor Charles Park, Dean of Mineral Sciences at Stanford 
University, points out that nothing now known can take the place of 
steel where strength is needed, as in skyscrapers, dams, or in the high- 
temperature alloys of a jet engine. Nothing now known will substitute 
for cobalt in the manufacture ofthe strong permanent magnets needed 
in all modern communications systems, he says, and no other metal 
will remain liquid like mercury. 

In 1970 Congress passed the Mining and Mineral Policy Act de- 
signed to bring about the orderly development of the nation's mineral 
resources by private industry. Some mining experts, however, believe 
the Act is facing too many handicaps to be effective. 

Dr. Thomas Falkie, Director of the Interior Department's Bureau 
for cobalt in the manufacture of the strong permanent magnets needed 
investment capital. He cites "unrealistic environmental regulation, the 
withdrawal of land to mineral entry under such laws as the Wilderness 
Act, and the increasing involvement of Federal, State and local gov- 
ernments with private enterprises" as stumbling blocks to the improve- 
ment of our mineral position. 

The mining industr}^ is frequently represented as one of the chief 
villians in ravishing the American landscape. Yet the National Com- 
mission on Materials Policy reported in 1973 that the criticism may 
have been excessive. "Total land disturbed in the entire history of the 
Nation by all types of mining including coal, oil, gas, stone, sand, and 
gravel, cement rock, and metal and nonmetallic ores has been less than 
0.3 percent," the Commission stated, and added that "one-third of that 
area has been reclaimed or restored by nature." 

Our needs for minerals are obviously enormous and increasing. The 
world supplies of many of them are decreasing and rising in cost. They 
are non-renewable. For some of the critical minerals there are no 
known substitutes. As a general rule, mining is a localized enterprise, 
not prone to affect extensive areas of the landscape. In recent years, 
furthermore, state and federal governments have seen fit to forestall 
mining activities that appeared to threaten the environment. 

Under the circumstances, do we want a National Forest policy that 
hamstrings mineral exploration and inhibits production? More and 
more western land, where geologists say we have our best chances for 
finding new minerals deposits, are being declared off-limits to mineral 
prospectors and developers. 

When the Wilderness Act of 1964 was passed it created 9.1 million 
acres of Wilderness areas. That total has since been enlarged to 31 
million acres, largely in the western states and Alaska. 

As a people and as a nation, we need metals and other minerals as 
well as timber, forage, and recreation. I, for one, believe forest manage- 
ment policy should recognize that fact. 



In conclusion, based on the experience of viable conservation and 
development movements such as conservation districts, I believe 
America can meet its future needs for water, forage, and minerals by 
applying sound conservation and developement principles. Our big 
task is to muster purposeful public support for this approach. 


[By Charles W. Bingham, Senior Vice President, Weyerhaeuser Company] 

During this century we have seen three major crises of public con- 
fidence in American forestry. Each has resulted in significant shifts 
in the direction of American forest management. 

Today, we are in a fourth period of major concern. I believe this, 
too, presents an opportunity for a major turning point in the practice 
of forestry — if we can understand the dimensions of the opportunity, 
and have the will to translate it into action. 

Nationwide concerns over forestry that began building in the late 
1880s have dominated debate throughout this century. The major con- 
cerns for the last 75 years or more have been future timber supply, 
and timber harvest practices. 

In 1911, those concerns led to passage of the Weeks Act. 

In 1924, the culmination of another round of debate was the Clarke- 
McXary Act. 

Then, in 1938, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt requested a 
Congressional study of the nation's f orestlands. A Congressional Joint 
Committee on Forestry responded in a report issued in 1941. Two in- 
direct results of that Committee's efforts stand out during the early 
40s. One was amendment of the Internal Revenue Code. Capital gains 
treatment was given to timber converted in the owner's mills, as well 
as timber sold to third parties. For the first time, federal tax policy 
recognized the long-term nature of forestry investments. The other 
major result, which came from the forest industry and thousands of 
smaller landowners, was the founding of the American tree farm 

The tree farm system began with a 130,000-acre tract of land in 
Grays Harbor County, Washington. About half of the tract was 
owned by Weyerhaeuser Timber Company. In June of 1941, the tract 
was formally and publicly dedicated to growing trees, and given the 
name demons Tree Farm. 

The tree farm idea came at exactly the right time to excite the imagi- 
nation of state foresters, forestry committees and private landowners. 
In only four years, there were 938 certified tree farms, covering more 
than 11 million acres. 

Today, there are more than 31,000 tree farms with some 76 million 
acres, in all 50 states. 

The primary emphasis of the first tree farm effort at Clemons was 
fire prevention. Parts of the Clemons tract had burned many times 
since logging had begun there in the 1880s. Much of the land had not 
gone beyond the first forest succession stage of wild grasses, brush 
and small hardwood trees. 



Nearly half of the Clemons tract was unstocked or poorly stocked 
as a result of repeated burning. Thus, for successful tree farming, 
fire prevention was a significant economic requirement. 

A major objective at Clemons was a city-like ability to put water 
directly on any acre in the tree farm, swiftly. That objective was 
met in 1941. 

With fire control underway, the foresters could try out additional 
tree farming techniques such as : 

Logging methods geared to providing suitable conditions for 

Artificial seeding to assure reforestation. 

Hand-planting was tried in some small, experimental areas. 
Efforts were made to protect the young trees from animal dam- 

And a forestry research unit was set up to study fire control, 
tree growth and yields, and pest control. 

The early concepts and techniques tried at Clemons were reflected 
in principles of the nationwide tree farm system. The system was man- 
aged on a state -by-state basis until the early 1950s. In 1954, certifica- 
tion principles were codified nationally by American Forest Products 
Industries, known today as the American Forest Institute, or AFI. 

Three major criteria were developed : 

The first was forest protection from fire, insects, disease and destruc- 
tive grazing. 

The second was permanent dedication of the land to growing and 
harvesting tree crops. 

And the third called for cutting practices that would improve the 
growth of the timber stand. 

With minor modifications, these are the same criteria used to certify 
tree farms today. Yet, over the past 35 years, our ability to grow trees 
as a crop has increased dramatically. 

Let's look briefly at how the forest management techniques have 
changed on Weyerhaeuser's lands in the original Clemons boundary. 
(Today, the ownership totals 89,000 acres.) 

With the ability to control fire came the ability to use it as a tool in 
logging cleanup. A helicopter techniques for directing flame onto slash 
significantly reduced the cost of disposal, and increased the number of 
acres that can be burned during our severely limited slash disposal 
season. The helicopters also work in controlling the flame spread. 

Today at Clemons, natural regeneration is a thing of the past. By 
hand-planting within a year after harvest, we can get a five-to-seven- 
year jump on nature in starting a new forest growth cycle. 

The seedlings are grown in nurseries — Weyerhaeuser has nine nurs- 
eries, which carry 270 million seedlings in inventory. 

Over the last 35 years, we've emphasized logging techniques that in- 
crease wood utilization, protect the soil, and help prepare the harvest 
site for reforestation. 

What I have been describing are basic elements of the tree farming 
system that Weyerhaeuser calls High Yield Forestry. In the ways I've 
mentioned, High Yield Forestry is a logical extension of original tree 
farming practices. But there's a good deal more — from the laboratory 
to the harvest. 


The research effort is the key. Today, we have more than 75 scientists 
in many disciplines working full time on forest management. Thirty- 
eight of them have doctorates in their fields. 

Thus High Yield Forestry can and does begin with detailed, sci- 
entific knowledge about forest soils. We have prepared extensive sur- 
veys of soil characteristics on each acre of our ownership. By knowing 
the productivity of the soil, we can target our forest management to- 
ward fulfilling the soil's true growth potential. 

Brush control is extremely important. The helicopter techniques of 
the late 40s now are a regular part of our forest management. 

Thinning and fertilization are also elements of intensive forest man- 
agement at Clemons. Today, at about stand age 15, we plan to thin 
out weaker trees precommercially. After we have thinned, the stronger 
trees have room to grow. The thinnings are left to return to the soil. 
At about age 25, and every five years thereafter, we can take out the 
thinnings that are usable size — at least for pulping, and most often 
for dimension lumber as well. 

When we do commercial thinning, we also plan to apply fertilizer 
to the stand. The fertilizer increases tree growth helping stands reach 
harvestable size more quickly. 

The most advanced technique we are trying operationally today is 
planting genetically improved seedlings. At our seed orchards, we 
graft branches from fast-growing, well-formed trees onto sturdy root 
stock. When the grafts bear seed, we collect it to grow seedlings. These 
are planted in the field at the same elevation and soil type as the parent 

At Clemons, we have just about worked our way through the old- 
growth, and have a high proportion of vigorous young stands. Ninety 
percent of the acreage is stocked with timber, most of it at good to 
excellent levels. 

Let's pause for a moment and take stock of where we are. We've 
briefly discussed three major crises of public concern about the nation's 
forests. We've seen how the debate of the 1930s led private forestry to 
increase the productivity of its timber holdings through tree farming. 

And now, we face this century's fourth crisis of confidence in Amer- 
ican forestry. The concerns are more complex, but they add up to much 
the same issues as in 1911, 1924, and 1941. They include protection of 
forest soils, air and water quality, wildlife habitat, and timber sup- 
ply for current and future generations. 

Five major studies in the early 1970s addressed these issues : 
The Public Land Law Review Commission. 
The Seaton Commission. 

The National Commission on Materials Policy. 
The U.S. Forest Service's Outlook for Timber. 
And the report, Five Years of Effort on the Third Forest. 

This year three additional reports have been published. 

The Forest Service study of Pacific Coast timber supply. 
The Wolf /Library of Congress Report. 

And perhaps the most thorough study in recent years, the Wash- 
ington State Department of Natural Resources study. 

All these reports recognize the importance of economics to forestry. 
That is, world markets which guarantee a realistic return on the capi- 


tal invested in tree farming. Today, these markets do exist, and can be 
expected to grow over the next several decades. The Forest Service pre- 
dicts that annual demand on the U.S. wood supply will rise 58 percent 
by the year 2000. 

Worldwide, the FAO predicts a doubling of wood demand by the end 
of the century. U.S. forests and mills are among the most productive, 
and the best situated geographically, for filling that world demand. 
But markets are of no value to the tree farmer unless they are accessi- 
ble. Our laws and regulations must permit wood and fiber producers to 
seek out and fill world markets, if there is to be significant investment 
in forestry. 

As Marion Clawson of Kesources for the Future points out, "In the 
long run growth cannot exceed harvest, especially for trees. ... If no 
trees are harvested, net growth is or will become zero." And I would 
add, if there are no markets, there is no reason to maintain the nation's 
productive forest potential. 

Assuming, though, that world markets will be accessible during the 
latter part of this century, let's consider how American's commercial 
foresters — especially its tree farmers — might go about further en- 
hancing the productivity of their lands. 

First, I believe industrial tree farms must continue to take the lead 
in research, capital investment, and forest management intensity — as 
they have done during the past 35 years of tree farming. 

Today, the industrial forest sector, with only 13% of America's com- 
mercial forest acreage, supplies 29% of the nation's wood supply. 

One reason is simply size of individual ownership. The average size 
on non-industrial tree farms is about 75-100 acres. Obviously, they 
cannot take advantage of the economies of scale available on industrial 
management blocks that are often thousands of acres in size. 

The industry is also a direct user of its own raw materials, to a large 
degree. It can obtain efficiencies and values that the owner of a 40-acre 
woodlot cannot achieve. 

The same can be said at the other end of the manufacturing process. 
The forest products industry goes directly to the consumer market, 
and can seek out the highest return for each product. The tree farmer, 
of course, does have markets for his intermediate products, logs and 

The fourth characteristic of industry's leadership is access to capital. 
Whether directly from cash income, or indirectly through borrowed 
funds, industry wina better position than the small private land- 
owner to generate the money for forestry investments. 

But with all that said — with the limitations of the private land- 
owner recognized and understood — I believe this : 

// American forestry is to meet the challenges before it, the highest 
standards of industrial forest management must become the target 
goals for all tree farmers — and the tree farm system must begin now 
to recognize that need. 

Let me illustrate what I mean by "highest industrial standards," as 
practiced on state and industrial lands in the West, and on millions of 
commercial acres in the South. Earlier, I described in broad terms the 
current forestry approach to the Glemons Tree Farm. Now I'd like to 
demonstrate the impact of that approach compared to less intensive 
management levels. 


For example, the annual sustainable harvest from our 89,000 acres 
in the original demons Tree Farm— with stocking levels as they were 
in 1941, natural regeneration, and a 90-year rotation— would give us 
119,000 cunits per year. 

If we plant each acre for full stocking, but still permit only natural 
growth, and maintain a 90-year rotation schedule, our tree farm will 
produce 203,000 cunits per year. 

But if we employ all the management practices we know today — 
planting, precommercial thinning, commercial thinning and fertiliza- 
tion—our 89,000-acre tree farm will produce 305,000 cunits per year, 
on a 50-year rotation! This is an increase of 156% over 1941 levels, 
and it will be further increased through genetically selected seedlings. 

What I'm talking about represents the highest current standards 
for industrial tree farming. Obviously, such management intensity 
cannot be translated into specific standards for all tree farms. Differ- 
ent geographies, species and soil characteristics combine into differ- 
ent forestry potentials. And for the smaller landowner especially, local 
market conditions and personal financial status directly affect what 
he can afford to do in forest management. 

But I do believe that eventually, most tree farming will trend to- 
ward a much higher level of forestry effort than today's. The growth 
in world markets, and the increasing value of wood, will lead to higher 
log and timber markets for the tree farmer, and will pull the dedicated 
landowner in the direction of more intensive management levels. 

That will happen eventually — but hearing what the public is saying- 
today, and recognizing the time required for any change to occur in 
forestry, I do not believe "eventually" is soon enough. 

We must begin now to strengthen the American tree farm system 
into a source of added support for the change in forest management 
that the forest industry has already begun to make. Today, the formal 
objective of the tree farm system speaks only of "management prac- 
tices that will produce more and better forest products and services." 

Surely in 1976 — the nation's bicentennial year — we need to adopt 
a new objective for America's tree farms. It should set forth the aim of 
maximizing forest growth, based on the biological and economic po- 
tential of each tree farm', under a range of management intesities. 
In short, it should he an objective that rededicates tree farming to 
America's future needs. 

Today, the criteria for tree farm certification are not appreciably 
different from those of the 1940s. I believe that to those criteria, we 
should add target goals for stand establishment and survival, for 
growth enhancement, and for maximum utilization of all harvested 
wood. And finally, I believe the management structure of the tree farm 
system must be strengthened to assist tree farmers in exceeding the 
criteria, and reaching for the target goals. 

What I am proposing, I believe, is not a wrenching change. By their 
entry into the system, tree farmers have shown that they are com- 
mitted to managing their forest lands productively. 

As we move toward the improved management levels I have de- 
scribed on an increasing percentage of private lands, we can avoid 
a fifth confrontation with the spectre of timber famine around the 
turn of the century. 


[By Robert L. Herbst, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Natural 


Mr. President, Dr. Turner, distinguished delegates and guests to this 
100th annual meeting of the American Forestry Association . . . 

We are gathered here for the Centennial sessions of this great or- 
ganization on the eve of a Bicentennial observance for our United 

From an historical perspective, we are a people that have known 
wars — from devastating world confrontations to a divisive internal 
struggle. We have known depression, recession and searing drought. 
But as a nation we have never been more preoccupied, more totally 
traumatized, than by current events which have brought us into con- 
frontation with the all-encompassing energy dilemma. 

Indeed, in our mode of living, in our life styles, we have permitted 
ourselves to become so totally dependent, such captives of a single 
energy source and the inter-related global web of supply, pricing and 
demand that our very self-reliance — our basic convictions that we are 
masters of our destiny — have been shaken and called into serious 

In a real sense, our great traditions of Independence have been 
threatened by our dependence. 

This Petroleum Syndrome — this specter — jeopardizes our capacity 
to heat our homes, to fuel and maintain our industries, to sustain our 
mobility and insure our national security. 

And how could this come to be? How could a nation which has 
demonstrated the awesome ability to explore the far reaches of outer 
space, to expose and harness the infinite secrets of the atom, to master 
complex computer technology — how could we have arrived at this 
seeming impasse where government, industry and citizen seem para- 
lyzed by a crippling reliance on a resource which is non-renewable, 
which is finite and which may well be exhausted — at least from the 
standpoint of mass consumption — within the life-spans of today's 

Could it be that we are guilty of allowing ourselves to become cap- 
tives of a national, in fact international orgy of single-minded con- 
sumption at any cost? How else could we have been subjected to a 
conspiracy of control and price fixing which, after all, could well be 
within the proper bounds of long-term self-interest by those that 
have — versus those that do not? 

Can it be that we have made a mockery of the words of our own 
countrymen . . . That we quote, but we do not listen ... That we 
memorize, but we do not heed ? Listen to what they have said : 



Henry David Thoreau : "The fate ... of the country does not de- 
pend on what kind of paper you drop into the ballot box, but on what 
kind of man you drop from your chamber into the street every 
morning ..." 

Shades of a Nation shaken and Watergate redefined ! 

And Aldo Leopold admonished that "A thing is right when it tends 
to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. 
It is wrong when it tends otherwise . . ." 

And what of Leopold's warning that we must, at any cost, embrace 
a national land ethic ? Leopold is gone — but does that land ethic live ? 

Is there not a real hazard that, in our compulsive rush to identify 
and develop new petroleum sources, to utilize our coal and our oil 
shale, to produce synthetic fuels, we shall pay too severe an ecological 
price ... in water depletion ... in enormous soil devastation . . . 
in the creation of boom-towns with all of the adverse social, scenic and 
esthetic consequences ? 

Gifford Pinchot defined it so : "Conservation is the wise use of the 
earth and its resources !" 

At this moment in time, what is our commitment to Pinchot's wise 
use principle — of our forest resources, our lands and waters and min- 
eral reserves. Is it a commitment to wisdom, or to the panic of ex- 
pediency and exploitation of our resource heritage at any price ? 

I do not consider these remarks unrelated to our concerns as forest 
resource managers. On the contrary. I introduce them to underscore 
my great feeling of urgency that we must re-commit, yes, re-dedicate 
ourselves to conservation principles. We must not, repeat not, sur- 
render to the panic of short-term profit considerations; to shotgun 
solutions at the expense of long-term conservation ethics and the 
future of this nation. You have children. I have children. We owe 
them a legacy — not a heritage lost to a few years of expediency. 

And what is the record written by America's forest industries ? 

I believe you will agree that we have known a bit of controversy. I 
believe you will also agree that the American Forest Industries have 
been the most sensitive — the most responsive of any American indus- 
try to qualitative and quantitative environmental concerns: in con- 
servation practices, in setting aside wilderness areas, in multiple use 
advocacy for recreationists, for wildlife, for hunters and fishermen. 

At times, it would appear that our forest industries have gone too 
far in consideration of world wood fiber needs for tomorrow — espe- 
cially in the area of diminishing commercial forest acreages. At times, 
we may have been too accommodating. 

In this regard, I am reminded of the story of the young man who 
landed a job as a clerk for a local Super Market. On his first day at 
work, he was approached by a rather impatient, seedy looking 

"Young man," said the customer, "I would like a HALF a head of 
lettuce . . ." 

"Sorry, Sir," our clerk replied. "I can't sell 3^011 half a head of 

"You can — and you will," said the demanding customer. "I'm a 
bachelor. I can't use a whole head of lettuce. It will just spoil and 
stink up my refrigerator." 


"Well, Sir, I'll have to ask the boss," the youngster replied. And he 
headed for the front office, not knowing the customer was hot on his 

"Hey, Boss,*' the clerk said, "some knucklehead is trying to buy a 
half head of lettuce.*- — and the words were scarcely out when he 
spotted the customer at his elbow, and quickly added : 

"This gentleman wants the other half!" 

Well, as you can imagine, the boss was impressed. "You know, son," 
he said, "you're pretty quick-witted. In fact, I'm going to recommend 
3'ou for our manager's school up there in Peyton, Minnesota." 

"Oh my gosh," the young clerk responded. "Don't send me to Peyton. 
The only things that place ever produced are hockey players and 

"Hold on, Fella," the Boss said sternly : "My wife happens to have 
been born and raised in Peyton !" 

"You don't say !" said the kid. "Which team did she play for?" 

Yes, sometimes management can be too accommodating. 

The foundation of my personal conservation career is rooted in 
forestry. From the major emphasis in my education, to field work, to 
administrative areas, forestry dominated the formative years of my 

As Commissioner of Minnesota's Department of Natural Kesources, 
I am now preoccupied by the administration of several disciplines. 
But I have never lost sight of my basic conviction: that our forests 
have a potential that is still untapped. 

Historically, in Minnesota and nationally, we have gone through a 
period of timber surplusses, to timber scarcity, to today's temporary 
phase of wood fiber abundance. We have come full cycle — and in a 
matter of less than a quarter century, we shall know another cycle of 
want — want for the forests that we are not planting today. 

The word "renewable" has become so commonplace, so over- worked, 
that we have all but lost sight of its implications and challenges. But 
it is a fact that not only is the living tree an inexhaustible resource, 
but a plant which still holds vast secrets. Inherent in our forests is the 
promise of providing for this nation real answers to that aforemen- 
tioned single-energy source dilemma — if we will but apply our Ameri- 
can genius to the research, the technology, the funding, the pooling of 
expertise necessary to capitalize on that latent promise. 

On the national scene, the picture looks like this : 

One-third of the United States is forested. Translated : Our total 
land area is 2.3 billion acres; 754 million acres are forested. 

Of our 754 million forested acres, approximately two-thirds, or 500 
million acres may be classified as commercial forest land. The remain- 
ing one-third, or 254 million acres, is non-commercial forest land; that 
is. land which is either incapable or unavailable for growing trees for 

Now let's take a clinical look at that commercial forest acreage. 

© Our 500 million commercial forest acres fall into three major 
ownership categories: public, industrial — and "other private" 

• Largest single owner of these lands: the Federal government, 
with 21% of the total acreage. And remember this : national for- 
ests embrace 46% of the nation's total softwood growing stock. 


Another six percent of total commercial acreages belongs to state 
and municipal governments. 

• 60% of the total commercial acreage — in the second, or non- 
governmental ownership category, belongs to some 4J/ 2 million 
non-industrial private owners: farmers, rangers, absentee land- 
lords and others. The average timber holding in this non-indus- 
trial classification is 70 acres. 

• The final, or third ownership category, is industrial forests. 13% 
of our total forests acreage is in that classification. 

That is the summary picture of fiber ownership in the United 
States today. 

Permit me at this juncture to examine with you our state forest 
ownership picture in the United States. 

• We have a total of 18,393,000 acres of forest resources owned 
by our state governments. Some of these forests grow on rela- 
tively flat terrain; others on hilly, or even precipitous lands. 
Some grow in temperate and even hot climates — others in rather 
brisk climates, such as we enjoy in good old Minnesota. Species 
and growth rates vary accordingly. 

• Of the total of 18.3 million acres of state forests on the national 
scene, this is the regional breakdown : 

— In 11 eastern states, we have 3,661.000 acres in state ownership. 

— In 12 midwestern states : 7,792,000 acres. 

— In 14 southern states ; 896,000 acres. 

— In 13 western states ; 6,014.000 acres. 

We also have, in nation-wide context, an estimated 51.767,000 acres 
of land classified as "idle, open land needing reforestation" — and I 
hasten to add that some of our wildlife managers would be delighted 
to debate that terminology. 

That, in a walnut shell, is our state forest ownership picture. But 
let us return for a moment to that 60% commercial acreage ownership 
category — the one which involves some 300 million acres of so-called 
non-industrial lands. It is a category which is mind-boggling in its 
implications, not only because some 4% million Americans own this 
land — but because this land has great commercial potential. 

To distill that arresting figure a bit more, I shall point a finger right 
at my home state of Minnesota, where 7 million acres of potentially 
productive forest lands are owned by no less than 150,000 citizens ! 

The implications of wise forest management practices applied to 
these lands would make any respectable forester salivate. But I have 
a ready response for the grandstand managers who chide the seeming 
vacuum in expertise for these acreages. 

Before You Can Practice Forestry, You Need the Funds for 

Forest Practices 

I do not say this by way of apology. Nor do I consider the remark 
out of context when it is related to my preface. I consider it just one 
example of the need to reorder this nation's system of priorities. I find 
it fascinating to engage in conjecture over the enormous amount of 
energy required to produce steel and aluminum for construction pur- 
poses — as opposed to the relatively insignificant amount of energy 
required to produce wood products for identical purposes. 


Again, if you will indulge me, I shall turn to my home State where 
forestry represents Minnesota's third largest industry. The economic 
implication of a viable forest industry to Minnesota is obvious — more 
so than in our neighboring states where large basic industries generate 
dollar returns. 

Thus, in relative terms, the fact that we do have sizeable acreages of 
non-productive Junk Forests in the private lands category is particu- 
larly frustrating. If we must provide this nation with twice as much 
wood by the year 2000 as we are now producing — and three separate 
national studies tell us so — we must find a means to make these small 
holdings produce up to their capacity. And that applies to Michigan, 
Maine, Minnesota — wherever those 4.5 million owners averaging 70 
acres each are located. 

In Minnesota, to help solve the dilemma, we are utilizing the federal 
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service cooperative pro- 
gram. The federal government provides incentive payments for the 
landowner, our state foresters provide technical service. This program 
pays for a part of the cost of tree planting, site preparation, timber 
stand improvement — as well as offering free technical advice. Ex- 
pense to the owner: 25% of the total cost involved. It is no cure-all, 
but it is a beginning. 

I cite Minnesota's approaches, and problems, because in microcosm 
they are symbolic of Forestry's challenges in many states. I find incred- 
ulous — let alone depressing — the fact that Minnesota last year alone 
put to the plow over 800,000 acres in our agricultural region — acres 
which were formerly grass and forest lands. We are experiencing, 
according to our own observations and those of the Soil Conservation 
Service, enormous erosion problems and soil loss. The pattern is re- 
peated in state after state throughout the Midwest. Wood lots, wind- 
breaks, protective grass lands are being destroyed. 

It would seem that we have learned nothing from the chapters of 
the 1930's; that the Lesson of the Dust Bowl has been lost — that we 
are determined to repeat the same tragic mistakes at the expense of our 
land because of our blind refusal to recognize the wisdom of conser- 
vation practices. 

What matters if we feed the world, if in the process we lose our land, 
let alone our conservation souls ? 

On the national front, Minnesota included, forest practices have been 
on the defensive — from land use practices, to land use designation; 
from clear cutting to cuttino- period. Witness the letters I have received 
from little and large children alike, admonishing me for permitting 
the cutting of Christmas trees ! 

Some of the vocal ones are irrational. But some of our environ- 
mental voices have forced us to look at ourselves, to re-examine our 
policies and practices with end results which have been beneficial to 

In Minnesota we are fortunate to have 3 million acres of state forests, 
and an additional 16 million acres of public and private forests. 

In providing recreational outlets and wildlife habitat, our forests 
have complimented our tourist industries. In providing watershed pro- 
tection, our forests have made enormous contributions to our liquid 
assets — the quality and purity of our lakes and streams, and to net re- 
turns from these waters. 

Our commercial forest acreage, again, reflects a national pattern. 
We dropped from 14,378,600 acres in 1960, to 13,547,900 commercial 


acres in 1972 — a loss of 831,000 acres to other uses. Of the acres lost, 
292,000 went from forest production into single-purpose recreational 

Last year, Minnesota harvested 1.5 million cords of pulpwood; 180 
million board feet of sawtimber; 300,000 plus cords of miscellaneous 
fuelwood poles. The value of this Minnesota timber after primary 
processing is over one-half billion dollars — a most formidable contribu- 
tion to our economy. 

We share a common concern with sister states regarding the Fed- 
eral Water Quality Act of 1971, and the implications of this regula- 
tion where forest management activities are concerned. To date, Min- 
nesota does not have a Forest Practices Act. But we have created a 
Timber Law Committee representing industry, counties, state, uni- 
versity and professional interests. We have developed a model for a 
Forest Practices Act, based primarily on Oregon law. We do not be- 
lieve in reinventing the wheel, when another state's example makes 
good sense. 

But still, as Viking Coach Bud Grant would say after losing a close 
one, "we've got to return to the basics on the practice field." In state 
after state, where our state and non-industrial lands are concerned, 
we encounter areas of benign neglect of fundamentals. 

Here, as I hear them and as I view them, are the basic challenges 
we must meet if we are to put our forestry house in order — and what- 
ever your interest area, may I suggest that if the wooden shoe fits, 
wear it. 

Inventory Urgency. — No respectable business can function without 
this elementary must: an inventory of what it has — and where. Yet, 
at this moment in Bicentennial time, we blushingly confess that we 
do not have that inventory. Yes, the federal government has the re- 
sponsibility to get a forest inventory in all states, in all categories. But 
the federal government does not have the funding necessary to bring 
this inventory down to county level — within a time framework which 
will not leave great credibility gaps. This inventory should also iden- 
tify private lands and, yes, marginal farm lands suitable for forestry — 
let alone those 4±/ 2 million owners of 70 acre average parcels in the non- 
industrial category. This Top Priority prerequisite requires the active 
support for everyone — from the private sector to the public, in acquir- 
ing the funding to get the job done. 

Intensive Management. — We need to view our forest crop — the 
species we plant — as we look at a portfolio of personal stock. We buy 
some stocks as good short term investments ; others as long term. And 
we sell off our marginal stocks and concentrate on the proven Blue 
Chips. So it must be in our forest practices. 

Competitive Efficiency. — We must accelerate our efforts to make our 
products competitive; intensify our efforts to advance our recycling 
technology — including the difficult challenge of separating household 
refuse. We must continue our programs to utilize fiber from all areas 
in the most economic and efficient way. And this charge applies to the 
operation of mills and plants. 

Communications and Education. — In a cooperative way, involving 
the public and private sector, we must intensify our communications 
and education efforts — for how else do we reach 4% million owners 
of small land parcels which could, in great part, be converted from 
junk forests to productive, profitable lands. We must identify, and 


reach these citizens. And we must strive to promote government pol- 
icies — especially in the area of tax incentives — which will stimulate 
industry and private owners alike to invest in the multiple values 
inherent in the living forest. 

Research. — Here again, we must pool our resources to promote basic 
research which will provide more products — and more alternatives than 
our crippling alliance to that single-energy source. A ton of municipal 
waste, which contains a high percentage of paper, has about half the 
BTU value of a ton of coal. This can and will become a more signifi- 
cant energy source. In 1940, we did not dream of an aircraft without 
a propeller. We did not dream of an American actually setting foot on 
the moon. Nor did we dream in those days of chippers ; of machines 
which would produce papermaking fiber from branches, stumps, roots, 
tops and even leaves of trees. We did not conceive of super-trees with 
high yield characteristics. We must redouble our efforts to unlock the 
secrets of the forest — and the promise it holds. 

Free Market. — All of us are aware of events and circumstances which 
present grave threats to our free society — unemployment, energy prob- 
lems, huge deficits, the financial plight of major cities, soaring interest 
rates, intense competition for capital. 

We must and we can make our free markets function as they should. 
The laws of supply and demand must be allowed to operate in a man- 
ner which permits wholesome, unencumbered competition — and pric- 
ing of products at levels which promote expansion. Only in this way 
can the forest industries avail themselves of the technological advances 
in plants and equipment which are the backbone of a free econoni}'. 

Above all, we do not want it to be said that we turned deaf ears 
to the words of our conservation greats. Their principles, their major 
message is, if anything, clearer today than it was yesterday : 

"If Our Environment Is Poor, We Shall Be Poor !" 

We have the history, the rich traditions, the demonstrated capacity 
of our forest industries to make this land prosper — to make most sig- 
nificant contributions to our future. This Bicentennial period is a most 
appropriate time to renew our dedication to making this a have — not 
a have not nation ! 

I thank you for the privilege of sharing these thoughts with you 

[By Charles J. Hitch, President, Resources for the Future, Inc.] 

Dr. Turner, Senator Hatfield, Chief McGuire, Commissioner Herbst, 
Mr. Xonnemacher, and delegates to this centennial congress : you have 
my warmest congratulations on this most important of institutional 
birthdays, and my deep appreciation for all that you and your prede- 
cessors have accomplished over these one hunderd years. What today 
is a full-fledged movement had its beginnings in John Aston Warder 
and the American Forestry Association. In an almost literal sense you 
have invented conservation and been its stewards for a century, and 
all of us are in your debt. 

So I should be honored in any event to be here with you on this spe- 
cial occasion, but as it happens I am particularly pleased to do so, for 
there are strong and warm ties between the American Forestry Associ- 
ation and Resources for the Future. Our former President, Joseph 
Fisher, is a member of your Board of Directors, and our Vice Pesident, 
Marion Clawson, has given you writings, help, advice, and a good deal 
of warm affection. I may be new to RFF and an unknown quantity 
to you of AFA, but I am part of a substantial tradition of friendly 
cooperation between our organizations and I am delighted to be here. 

The old Washington hands among you will be familiar with the 
big clock that used to hang in the main lobby of the Commerce De- 
partment. Unlike most clocks, this one did not have chronology as its 
major purpose, but rather a simplified demography: as the minutes 
and hours ticked away, the clock totaled the additions and subtractions 
of births and deaths, immigration and emigration, and indicate at a 
glance the current total population of the United States. 

Well, the clock exhibit isn't there anymore : like so much else in this 
constructing, renovating, subway-building capital, it has been packed 
off for repair and refurbishing so it will be in good shape for the Bi- 
centennial. Population growth continues anyway, however. According 
to that master clock-watcher, the Bureau of the Census, one new baby 
is born every ten seconds in this country. When all the factors are to- 
taled, there is one more American every 21 seconds : one more mouth to 
feed, to clothe, to heat, cool, and fuel. Over 4,000 more people every 
day, nearly 30,000 every week. When the population clock goes back on 
the Commerce Department wall, it will point to about 215 million of 
us. By any reckoning, that is a big number. 

Numbers, however, are relative, and the surprising significance of 
the population number is its relative smallness. The total is not nearly 
so large as it might have been, and projections based on it and its con- 



tributory rates are much more conservative than would have been sup- 
posed only brief years ago. 

When I was appointed President of the University of California 
in the fall of 1967, one of our biggest concerns — perhaps the major set 
of problems — was the demand of mushrooming growth. Each fall saw 
an avalanche of freshmen : we had doubled in size in a decade and there 
was no end in sight. Like Alice in Wonderland, we had to run — and 
swifty — just to stay in the same place. 

Of course, there was an end, and it came sooner and more suddenly 
than anyone thought possible. The 1970 census figures told the story, 
and by now its features are commonplace : sharply lower birth rates, 
a marked decline in future growth projections, a reverse image of the 
bursting-at-the-seams campus, Colleges and universities across the 
country long since have stopped bolting the doors against the expected 
flood. Kecruiting has become a ref ound art. 

My assignment today is to assay our chances of providing resources 
for 300 million. W T hat are the time frames involved? Well, if the total 
fertility rate of the 1960's had continued — an average 2.5 children per 
woman for the decade — we would be a nation of 300 million just about 
at the turn of the century. That figure would leap to 350 million at the 
year 2020 and, since a rate of 2.5 would guarantee growth indefinitely, 
exponentially higher figures as the population base increased. I want to 
emphasize that this kind of numbers game is meaningless, for far too 
many factors are involved to permit a mechanical extrapolation, but 
the 2.5 rate applied to today's base would result in a U.S. population 
of 2 billion by the year 2200. I can assure you that that figure would 
result in a resource squeeze of gargantuan proportions. 

All that is fantasy, however, not only because of likely future 
changes which would alter such a self-defeating trend, but also in 
light of present data. In fact, the 2.5 fertility rate no longer prevails, 
as my academic colleagues and I found out when we examined the 
1970 census results. Indeed, the rate, dropping steadily throughout 
the sixties, approached the 2.1 replacement level and actually passed 
it on the down side. In 1972 and 1973, the rate was such that — if it 
continued — zero population growth was a prospective reality for the 
mid-21 st century, not simply an ultimate goal. For this country — and 
I emphasize that — for this country, the population bomb had been 
defused and a new, curiously contradictory concept was being talked 
about — negative growth. 

There is some feeling that we already may have bottomed out in the 
case of declining fertility rates. The most recent indication 1 — though 
admittedly tentative for the country as a whole — is that the rate is 
nudging upward again. I do not expect that it will go too high, how- 
ever. Indeed, I think that we in the developed countries may have 
passed a very significant turning point in human history, a point of 
permanent deflection of population growth rates. Of course, some- 
thing in the future — perhaps a source of unlimited energy, or another 
revolutionary change in family attitudes — might turn things around 
again, but for as far as I can see, growth rates for the United States 
are going to be constrained by a powerful combination of socioeco- 
nomic factors, most particularly including a changed view of women 

iSklar, June, and Beth Berkov, "The American Birth Rate: Evidence of a Coming 
Rise." Science, Aug. 29, 1975, pp. 693ff. 


and their role in the home and in the work force, and an awareness 
of the pivotal part played by population size in the consumption of re- 
sources. The picture in the rest of the world is much different— tragi- 
cally different for some underdeveloped and overpopulated areas — but 
in the United States, we probably can look forward to slower popula- 
tion growth, tapering off in the middle of the next century to a sta- 
bility affected more by immigration rates than birth rates. 

So I am willing to crawl at least part way out on a limb and say 
that, give or take a fluctuation now and then, this country has shifted 
from an average of three children per family to two, and that this 
shift translates to a total population of 300 million somewhere around 
the year 2020. Forty-five years, an additional 85 million people, 
growth by 40 percent in population, and an economy probably over 
three times larger 2 than today's : can we handle this % Will we in fact 
have the resources for 300 million ? 

Most of us at Kesources for the Future believe the answer is yes, 
that the resources can be made available, in the year 2020 and probably 
indefinitely. We realize that there is more news value in predicting the 
depletion of phosphorus in X years, or the exhaustion of continental 
coal reserves within a lifetime, or a fight for sleeping space by a wall- 
to-wall population, but we have resigned ourselves to the lack of head- 
lines. Certainly there will be difficult resources problems — the short- 
and middle-range situation is especially intractable — but our research 
does not lead us to predictions of gloom and disaster. The resources 
are there, and they can be made available if we are willing to pay their 
true social cost. 

Resources for the Future traces its intellectual heritage to the 
President's Materials Policy Commission of the early 1950's, estab- 
lished to evaluate the availability of natural resources for national 
needs. Its chairman was William S. Paley, chairman of the board of 
CBS and later to be chairman of the board of Resources for the 
Future. The Paley Commission demonstrated that absolute depletion 
is highly unlikely, and that in any case the elasticity of supply guar- 
antees no sudden exhaustion, as long as additional costs are paid. We 
live in a finite world and many things will be necessary if we are to 
take a different approach or to come to different conclusions. We 
live in a finite world and many things will be necessary if we are to 
husband its resources — research and development at home and abroad, 
materials substitution, stockpiling, recycling, and changes in consump- 
tion habits among them — but as our name implies, we believe there 
will indeed be resources for the future, for the year 2020 and beyond. 

Let's look at two major areas. 


Perhaps the most basic question to be asked about the future is, can 
we feed ourselves if there are 85 million more of us ? When you con- 
sider how much food we currently are exporting, the answer is ob- 
vious. But there is no need to cut off exports. On the contrary, they 
probably can be increased, while the use of fertilizers and pesticides 
can be decreased, if genetic improvement can be continued and sufficient 
new land is brought into production. This will be expensive, for it will 

2 Ridker, Ronald G. f editor, Volume III of Commission Research Reports, "Population, 
Resources, and theEnvironment," p. 21. Commission on Populatioon Growth and the 
American Future, Washington, D.C. : Government Printing Office, 1972. 

67-054—76 7 


be poorer quality land, but it can be done without prohibitive price 
hikes. There are many uncertainties and trade-offs involved : for ex- 
ample, future populations can be higher or lower, restrictions on the 
use of fertilizers and pesticides can be strengthened or relaxed, and 
land under cultivation may be contracted or expanded. There may be 
research breakthroughs, such as in the biological fixation of nitrogen. 
Future agricultural scenarios are almost limitless, but one fact is 
clear: the United States can feed 300 million Americans at current 
levels of consumption and still be a major agricultural exporter. 

But what if our population growth is much greater than we expect, 
or what if we decide to shoulder a heavier portion of the world food 
burden ? Then agricultural research and development will have to pro- 
duce a second-generation green revolution, this time in the developed 
countries as well. Perhaps the few commercial experiments with hydro- 
ponic farming can be expanded by some orders of magnitude. Or con- 
sider the possibility of a completely self-contained photosynthetic "fac- 
tory." 3 But if at some time we should have manipulted every factor of 
supply and still fall short, there are demand inputs to the equation 
which have a significant potential yield. 

I refer to the heavy — some would say inordinately heavy — consump- 
tion of animal protein in this country. Especially in the case of feed- 
lot beef, this involves a significant foodstuffs loss as several pounds of 
grain — vegetable protein — are converted to a single pound of animal 
protein. The recognition of this protein gap has given rise to some in- 
creased meatlessness, especially among young people, and vegetarian 
and quasi-vegetarian diets are finding their way into the popular 
media. As far as I know, this movement — if it can be called that — has 
not perceptibly affected national averages, but it may be a harbinger of 
trends in the future. 

If so, it can come none too soon for many critics of U.S. levels of 
consumption. The following passages are from a report produced under 
the auspices of the Club of Kome. 4 

The reduction of population growth and changes in the consumption pattern 
are the two most powerful instruments for bringing about an appropriate balance 
between food production and food requirements in the long run. For countries of 
South Asia, for example, the slowing down of population growth is more im- 
portant whereas for the affluent countries, changes in the consumption pattern 
are much more relevant. 

Many nutritionists are of the opinion that in developed countries per capita 
consumption of meat very often exceeds the amount needed for a healthy diet. 
Excessive consumption absorbs part of the grains required by the poor for a 
minimum diet. For these reasons, taxes on meat consumption or on grains fed to 
cattle might benefit all concerned. 

I would not give the meat and population questions anywhere near 
equal weight. The primary problem is the present inability of many 
poor countries to feed themselves, and agricultural demand obviously 
is much more closely linked to population levels in those countries 
than to consumption patterns here. Still, the United States is not an 
island — politically, culturally, or in any other way — and it is in- 
structive to us to know that this criticism exists and that there is some 
basis for it. We may never have to reduce drastically our consumption 

3 See p. 182, To Live on Earth, by Sterling Brubaker, for a fascinating glimpse of such 
a "factory." The Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future, Inc., 
Baltimore, 1972. 

4 Reviewing the International Order : Interim Report. Project RIO, Rotterdam, 1975. 
Annex 4, pp. 1 and 2. 


of meat — in any case that contingency would seem to be some decades 
ahead — but it is quite true that more protein could be produced on 
fewer acres. To that extent, there is both figurative and literal fat in 
our agricultural system. 


If only because they are so much in the news, most of us would put 
the problems of energy number two on the worry list for the future. If 
Ave have iminent shortages now, if not an actual crisis, what are we 
going to do 45 years hence with a 40 percent greater population? Let 
me try to put the situation into perspective. 

Despite the historical hoopla surrounding the Bicentennial, we are 
a young nation perhaps most noteworthy for our cultural diversity. 
Yet some distinctively American proverbs have developed : "You don't 
get something for nothing"; "You only really enjoy something if you 
have worked hard to get it" ; "There is no such thing as a free lunch !" 
All these homespun aphorisms to the contrary, however, we have acted 
for three-quarters of a century or more exactly as if fossil fuels were 
free, a gift horse whose teeth nobody ever bothered to inspect. The 
stuff was taken out of 'the ground as if it were inexhaustible, as if 
there were no tomorrow, and its costs were hidden, distorted, and 
cheapened. We were not paying the full bill of fare. Now all at once 
our lavish growth, coupled with a drop in domestic oil and gas pro- 
duction and assisted by a push from the OPEC countries, have brought 
us fully aware that we are living beyond our energy means; we know 
now that there are limits, and they seem too close for comfort. Not for 
several decades, if then, will there be any free lunch where energy is 

But to say that energy will cost more is not the same thing as saying 
that we are in imminent danger of running out. Its sources may change 
and it will cost more — because production costs are higher, because 
associated environmental costs are beginning to be paid, because of 
international political and trade consideration — but it won't disap- 
pear, at least not soon and certainly not suddenly. Even without tech- 
nological breakthroughs, world fossil fuel reserves (including po- 
tential as well as proved) appear adequate for at least the next half 
century. This reckoning appears to be true even leaving out oil reserves 
in shale and tar sands, and uranium and thorium. Beyond these possi- 
bilities, if man learns to harness nuclear fusion — a reasonable possibil- 
ity within the next 50 to 100 years — the limits of worldwide industrial 
expansion will be set by factors other than availability of energy. 5 

So there is no last great brown-out just around the corner, as long 
as the true costs o,f extracting energy are recognized and paid. Yet 
there are substantial short- and middle-range energy problems, as we 
all are aware, involving the sort of thing a democratic society finds 
most difficult to resolve : how to allocate supplies during shortages, how 
to assure that all segments of the population pay and benefit equally, 
how to protect the environment while increasing production while not 
interfering unduly with personal and corporate freedom. The energy 
situation is all thorns — no matter where and how }^ou try to pick it 
up you will feel some pain — but it is not so much a problem of physical 
resources as it is of people in society. It is a social problem, an institu- 

5 Ridker, op. cit., p. 24. 


tional problem, a legal, political, and economic problem, and it will re- 
quire our best efforts if we are to make it through to the time when 
solar and fusion power may make the whole thing an unhappy memory. 
Or perhaps we'll remember this period as the good old days, for 
higher prices and both real and perceived shortages will have some 
good effects as well as poor. I expect, for instance, that we will become 
much wiser custodians of our energy resources, more efficient and 
cleaner in their use and more conserving of their supply. Researchers 
and technologists will turn to the field with rekindled interest and 
vigor — and funding — and new inventions are a definite possibility. 
And necessity may well mother some social inventions as well : people 
tend not to act until a crisis is upon them, but once it is — and 1 think 
energy does have crisis implications to many — then social logjams are 
broken and new roads can be taken. I do expect that the energy situa- 
tion will produce some constructive political approaches, in this coun- 
try and internationally. 

I don't mean to sound like a Polryanna. I think there are good and 
hopeful signs for the longer-range future, but the immediate picture 
offers little to cheer about and I certainly do not mean to imply other- 
wise. We are in a period of transition and there won't be anything 
easy about it. Yet we are not without tools to affect the immediate 
future. In a new book 6 released only last week, Joel Darmstadter of 
RFF points out that growth rates of energy consumption can be 
reduced significantly without major changes in lifestyles or standards 
of living. In a carefully-drawn estimate of the effects of conservation 
in the New York Region, he concludes that such measures as better 
building insulation — especially in older buildings — and a shift to 
smaller cars can reduce the level of energy consumption by 10-12 
precent under what would be expected without conservation. At 
best this would shift the 1985 level to 1990 or so — postponing the 
problem, not solving it — but it does provide a kind of breathing space, 
an easing of pressure which will permit more research and 

The industrial process offers another fruitful target for conserva- 
tion efforts. Glenn Seaborg, my colleague from the University of 
California, has noted that "Recycled steel requires 75 percent less 
energy than steel made from iron ore : TO percent less energy is used 
in recycling paper than in using virgin pulp; 12 times as much 
energy is needed to produce primary aluminum as to recover alu- 
minum scrap." 7 If only because we have been so profligate in the past, 
conservation, including recycling, offers substantial short-term re- 
sults. There is slack in the system— I don't think anyone really knows 
the full extent of it — and it can and will be taken up. 

Still another possibility is materials substitution, the use of a 
renewable resource, or a more efficient one or a more durable one, 
in place of one which is finite or wasteful of energy. In this, as you 
are well aware, forest resources will have an enhanced role, for wood 
is renewable, biodegradable, and energy-efficient in production, all 
qualities which will become ever more important. This shift will 

•Darmstadter, Joel, Conserving Energy: Prospects and Opportunities in the New York 
Region. The Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future, Inc., Baltimore, 

' Seabors, Glenn T., "The Prospective Change in Life Style Signaled by the Energy 
Crunch." Public Administration Review, July/August 1975, p. 334. 


have its share of controversy, as you can imagine, but I think it can 
be managed with due regard for all the interests involved. 

There is only so much that can be addressed in a talk like this. I 
have not, for example, chosen to explore the portentous issues pre- 
sented by nuclear fission power, despite the fact that the electric utility 
industry clearly intends to rely increasing on this source, 8 and de- 
spite the serious misgivings of many knowledgeable people about it. 
For example, Allen Kneese, formerly director of RFF's Quality of 
the Environment program, his written of the deeply ethical nature 
of the decision on nuclear fission power. 

If so unforgiving a technology as large-scale nuclear fission energy production 
is adopted, it will impose a burden of continuous monitoring and sophisticated 
management of a dangerous material, essentially forever. The penalty of not 
bearing this burden may be unparalleled disaster. This irreversible burden would 
be imposed even if nuclear fission were to be used only for a few decades, a 
mere instant in the pertinent time scales. 

One speaks of two hundred thousand years. Only a little more than one- 
hundredth of that time span has passed since the Parthenon was built. We 
know of no government whose life was more than an instant by comparison with 
the half-life of plutonium. 9 

Have we really thought through all the alternatives ? Do the known 
benefits outweigh the unfathomable costs? Can we presume to mort- 
gage indefinitely the future of the planet? And if we decide the risks 
are too great, can we prevail on others to come to the same conclusion? 
The French? The Soviets? The Indians? The dimensions of the prob- 
lems are enormous, and I can no more than hint at them today. Their 
solution, if any, awaits much concentrated research and the most prob- 
ing and inclusive public and scientific debate. 

I also intend to detour around other potential energy sources, such 
as solar and geothermal — which may have only marginal relevance 
to whether we can provide for a population of 300 million — and, for 
reasons of time, such natural resources as water, air, the nonfuel 
minerals, and the oceans. About these I want to say only that none of 
our studies indicates that doomsday is near: the resources are there, 
for more than 300 million Americans and for the probable addi- 
tional billions of the world population. Despite the hue and cry, there 
really is not much of an argument about this. Even the relatively dour 
prophets of the Club of Rome state in its latest report that "neither 
food, nor energy, nor mineral resources appear from a technological 
viewpoint to be seriously critical for the next 25 years.'' 10 The Club 
points out, however, that from a socio-political viewpoint, many areas 
already are critical, and I cannot but agree. The worldwide production 
of food is sufficient, for example, but its production in some regions 
and its distribution are anything but. Famines do occur, and they may 
become more frequent and severe as world population pressures mount. 
Again the issues are not so much resources problems as human 

This is ironic, for with the important exception of nuclear energy, 
most of the problems of natural resources differ only in degree from 

8 See, for example, p. 11 and throughout of the executive summary of "Economic Growth 
in the Future." Edison Electric Institute, New York, 1975. 

Kneese, Allen V.. "The Faustian Bargain." Resources, September 1973, Resources for 
the Future, Inc., Washington, D.C. 

10 Draft of the Third Report to the Club of Rome. Quoted bv John A. Harris, IV, and 
Berrien Moore, III, in "Feasibility Study : Establishment of a U.S.A. Chapter of the Club 
of Rome," August 1975, p. 5. 

those people have confronted since the human race gathered round 
the campfires of prehistory: how is wealth — however construed — to 
be generated and divided ? How is society — any society — to be orga- 
nized so that its members are substained and nourished \ When a deci- 
sion is made — political, social, economic — who gains and who loses? 
In some ways, the knowledge that absolute depletion of resources is 
a manageable threat is comforting, for we cannot reverse the irreversi- 
ble and the lack of one or more vital resources might indeed herald 
disaster. On the other hand, if people have been unable for thousands 
of years to work out a more nearly ideal arrangement for living to- 
gether, what bleak promise can there be in the recognition that most of 
our problems are social? 

The answer is that conditions have changed : to past generations, en- 
ergy was cheap, forests were limitless, water inexhaustible, the air and 
the oceans infinite reservoirs. I am an economist and not an anthro- 
pologist, but to me, the explanation for human pre-eminence on this 
planet — the case for speech and the opposable thumb notwithstand- 
ing — is our flexibility, our adaptability to vastly different climates, 
diets, and conditions of life. The fact of limits to the misuse of re- 
sources was perhaps slow to sink in, but sink in it has, and we have 
passed a historical milestone. Perceived conditions have changed, and 
we have changed in response. 

Do you hear people say anymore that bigger is better? In Detroit 
building bigger and less efficient cars, or are we being blitzed by the 
media with EPA mileage figures, with mini-Fords and Chevrolets, 
even mini-Cadillacs? Do communities continue to measure progress 
in terms of population growth, or do Ave see instead signs from Fair- 
fax, Virginia, to Petaluma, California, that enough is enough, or per- 
haps to much ? I think growth for growth's sake is a dead idea, and I 
cannot foresee any circumstances in the future which will revive it. 

"We do have to concern ourselves with natural resources — some are 
finite, others can be irreparably damaged, and most will become in- 
creasingly expensive — but I am convinced we will have enough if we 
are wise stewards. But even if we were to be assured all the resources 
we need in perpetuity, Ave still would be left with human nature as a 
piA r otal factor. Who we are, to what degree Ave can fashion true com- 
munity, how Ave can more harmoniously live in this closed system 
called earth: these are the important and enduring questions, and 
knoAvledge and trained intelligence are the tools for their solution. 
Fortunately, there are no limits to the growth of knoAvledge. to the 
deA^elopment of this distinctly human source of capital, and in its 
infinite expansion Ave invest all our hopes and dreams for the future. 



[By Lynn A. Greenwalt, Director. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of 

the Interior] 

I am grateful for the opportunity to be here today. It is a high honor 
and distinct privilege to participate in this landmark conference, 
which is addressing itself at the highest levels not just to forest 
management but to" wildlife and other related natural resources as 

John Gottschalk, a former director of the Service, once noted that 
we biologists like to think that we are really brothers under the skin 
with foresters. Aldo Leopold, our adopted patron saint, was first of 
all a forester. Looking back through the roster of other men who have 
made their mark in wildlife conservation, it is quite evident that 
foresters and wildlife managers can be interchangeable. 

Having thus establishd a certain ecumenical rapport, let me talk 
for a few moments about fish and wildlife and their absolute inter- 
dependence on forests and other natural resources. I beg your indul- 
gence for flavoring this discussion with some of my own deeply felt 
personal philosophies. 

When the English poet John Donne penned the following words 
several centuries ago he was not talking about conservation nor the 
interdependence of natural resources. He did, however, eloquently ex- 
press the existence of a cosmic oneness which all living things share, 
and we would do well to keep his thoughts in mind. 

In Donne's words : "Xo man is an island, entire of itself: every man 
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main : if a clod be washed away 
by the sea. Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well 
as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were ; any man's death 
diminishes me. because I am involved in mankind ; and therefore never 
send to know for whom the bell tolls ; it tolls for thee." 

Paraphrased into simplicity, we may read into the poet's prose the 
inescapable fact that all of us in the conservation movement, as in life, 
are in it together — foresters, biologists, bird watchers, nature lovers, 
hunters, defenders of animals, and. yes, even that ubiquitous group 
Dick Pardo. AFA's Programs Director, has referred to as '"little old 
ladies in combat boots." May the Lord bless them ! For they have done 
much good. 

From this point I want to move to more specific ramifications of 
forest-fish and wildlife relationships. 

Forest management, whatever its objective — saw log cutting, pulp 
log harvest, reforestation, fire control — has a potential for profound 
impact on fish and wildlife habitat and is, therefore, rich in potential 
for benefit to fish and wildlife. Most forestry programs carried out in 



the world today are designed to yield a multiplicity of benefits to the 
landowner. The enlightened forecasts now at work in the woods rec- 
ognize the great opportunity they have to benefit from more than 
just the accumulation of forest products. 

The opportunity to reap more than one benefit from forest manage- 
ment is one that is virtually limitless. It's easy to manage forests — or 
any land, for that matter — to maximize the output of timber, or 
grazing, or recreation, or fish and wildlife, or for any other single 
purpose. It's not so easy to manage lands to provide a mixture, an 
array, of benefits. Once the manager steps into the arena of multiple 
benefits production he becomes embroiled in the problem of how much 
of what should be produced and to what degree is one benefit to be 
given up so that another can be gained. This is a difficult problem at 
best, but particularly when public lands are involved — subject as they 
are to the often countervailing pressures of the hosts of interests 
represented by the public at large. 

Fortunately for the United States, forestry in this Nation is almost 
universally based upon the idea that multiple values are to be derived 
from forest lands, public and private. The Xation is equally fortunate 
that among these values are fish and wildlife. There is a growing 
increase in the level of recognition given fish and wildlife and this 
should be comforting for all of us, because the opportunities for en- 
hancing fish and wildlife on forest lands are great indeed. While this 
recognition has been late in coming it is increasing at an encouraging 

As Forest Service Chief John MeGuire said in a recent speech: 
"Historically, wildlife was one of the last resources in this country 
to be placed under managment. Even after the Xation had begun to 
manage agricultural crops and trees, we still believed that Mother 
Nature could take care of the animals. We didn't realize the extent to 
which man's presence changes both the variety and habitat of wildlif e 
in our forest and rangelands. Even now, we are gaining new knowl- 
edge about certain species." 

These opportunities can be exploited in a variety of ways, often 
without significant interference with other forest management objec- 
tives. The trick is to determine ahead of time what it is the forest 
should } T ield in terms of a variety of benefits and then set out to 
manage these lands accordingly. This means careful planning, of 
course, and a recognition that many benefits just don't accrue auto- 
matically as a result of doing the usual, traditional kinds of forest 
management. One must be prepared to work at securing the combina- 
tion of benefits desired and this means accepting the idea that manage- 
ment modifications are in order. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages approximately 32 
million acres of refuge lands. Of this about 5.5 million acres are in 
timber and brushland on 65 National Wildlife Refuges where such 
terrain is managed primarily for the benefit of wildlife. While we 
may be a mini-landlord compared with some Federal agencies, we do 
harvest timber and in relatively impressive amounts — $820,000 worth 
in 1974. Our timber management programs, particularly in the south- 
eastern States, are fine examples of how timber can be managed to 
benefit wildlife. Our operations are studied by foresters from all over 
the world, and we're proud to put these programs on display. 


We in the Fish and Wildlife Service do not say that all timber 
management should be patterned after ours ; we say only that we can 
show the way to manage timber to benefit wildlife and suggest that 
when the forest manager wants to do that we have a model that can 
be helpful to him in gaining that objective. We are especially proud 
of our timber management programs on the Noxubee National Wild- 
life Refuge in Mississippi and the Piedmont Refuge in Georgia. 

The kinds of things we do sometimes startle the tradition-bound 
forester — not to mention the environmental purist. For example, we 
show that wildlife often benefit to a remarkable degree from practices 
that are often thought to be inimical to sound forest management. 
Among other forest management practices, we sometimes utilize clear- 
cutting, for example. Not on a grand scale, perhaps, but we have found 
that opening up the forest can be particularly beneficial to some wild- 
life species. We often flood our forest lands : those of you who have 
seen waterfowl in the flooded hardwoods of Arkansas know that 
mallards and trees make an exciting combination. On the Kenai Na- 
tional Moose Range in Alaska the moose — and other wildlife — have 
been the beneficiaries of that nightmare of foresters : fire. Fire-induced 
disclimax vegetation has increased the moose population on that area 
substantially. Dead snags, often an affront to the sensibilities of the 
forest manager, are important to eagles, falcons, woodpeckers, and 
wood ducks, some species of which are threatened or endangered. 
Wind-downed timber is valuable cover for forest birds and small 

Incidentally, I would be remiss if I did not salute the U.S. Forest 
Service's splendid cooperation in modifying some of its management 
plans to help assure the survival of certain endangered species. The 
Kirtland's warbler in Minnesota, the condor in California, and the 
eagle nests in Alaska and elsewhere are just a few examples. 

I've pointed to these actions only to indicate that sometimes the 
management of forest lands to benefit wildlife means that the manager 
must be willing to break with tradition in order to achieve the kinds 
of benefits he is after. This means the consideration of alterna- 
tives — "trade-offs" in the lexicon of the bureaucrat. This is not easy, 
because when alternatives are available the manager is subject to the 
pressures of various groups who'd like him to do things their way. The 
striking of a proper balance in these circumstances is perhaps more of 
an art than a science, but it is something that more of us must become 
comfortable with as time goes on. 

Suffice to say that the opportunity is there ; it remains for all of us 
who have a responsibility for forest lands to determine where, to what 
degree, and how those opportunities are to be exploited. 

Fish and wildlife — and their habitats — are a valuable commodity. 
They are valuable economically: one need only to contemplate the 
millions upon millions of dollars spent on fish and wildlife related 
activities of all kinds to be convinced that the economics of wildlife 
is a substantial part of this Nation's economic aggregate. They are 
valuable esthetically : imagine what the world would be like without 
wildlife species with which we are most familiar — ducks and geese, 
deer, bears, rabbits, butterflies, the whole spectrum of living things that 
make life interesting and appealing. 


Fish and wildlife and the places they live are absolutely essential to 
man's well-being : whole segments of the world's population live largely 
on products of the sea ; the estuaries of the world — those areas where 
rivers meet the ocean — are vital to the creatures that live in the sea, 
since most spend at least a part of their lives in these intertidal nurs- 
eries ; the estuaries are dependent upon the quality of the water enter- 
ing them from the rivers and streams and oceans; man has a profound 
impact on the quality of these waters. Without a properly functioning 
machine, as represented by the interrelationships between oceans, the 
estuaries, the rivers, and the lands that affect the rivers, man and all 
of his fellow creatures are collectively in jeopardy. 

In a very real sense, then we cannot afford to be without wild crea- 
tures and their habitats. It is not unrealistic to say that man's very 
survival may depend on his ability to maintain an environment that 
will support his fellow creatures — large and small. Failures to do so 
could spell the end of more than one species, including that large, 
warm-blooded, car-driving, energy-consuming omnivore called Homo 

E. B. White, journalist and famous essayist and humorist for New 
Yorker magazine, gives us pause for thought with these words : "I am 
pessimistic about the human race because it is too ingenious for its 
own good. Our approach to nature is to beat it into submission. We 
would stand a better chance of survival if we accommodated ourselves 
to this planet and viewed it appreciatively instead of skeptically and 

Nature is important. Fish and wildlife are important. These truths 
are. I think, widely recognized. What is not so generally understood 
is what it is that fish and wildlife need in order to survive, especially 
in today's world, where man can and does have so many major 

The critical need of fish and wildilfe today, the ingredient that is 
vital and at the same time more vulnerable than ever before, is habi- 
tat — the places wild creatures live. Unless habitat of the proper kind, 
of a proper quality, and in sufficient quantity is available, fish and 
wildlife simply cannot survive. As I'm sure you all know, habitat is not 
just the nearly primith^e and often remote forest, or the desert, or 
the mountain tops with which wildilfe are so often associated in the 
minds of the general public. Habitat includes coastal wetlands, the 
ocean shelf, the grasslands and potholes, field borders, woodlands, and 
backyards that offer places for wildlife to live and reproduce. These 
kinds of habitats are disappearing at an alarming rate. Highways, 
parking lots, homesites on drained and filled marshes, industrial sites, 
mines, and urban sprawl are leaving precious little habitat for any- 
thing — except man. Eroded fields, polluted streams, lakes infused with 
poisonous chemicals or unnatural nutrients contribute only to the 
decline of wildlife and fish populations. 

Clearly, the processes by which habitat is destroyed are accelerating 
in their effect. The factor common to all of this, of course, is man and 
his activity. Our desire to improve our collective lifestyle, to secure 
more of the things we have come to need, to power our society, to 
achieve the self -elevation and self -discovery all of us cherish, has 
been achieved at a monumental cost. And a significant part of that 
cost is in more than dollars. It has been, it is, and probably will be, at 


a cost borne by fish and wildlife through loss of habitat. And this 
precious commodity, once gone, is gone forever. It's clear, too. that 
if we are to achieve these things associated with "progress" (whatever 
that is) we must continue to impose this burden in some way. Some- 
thing has to give, simply because we cannot have all of everything. 

Man began to make his choices in this matter some time ago. When 
non-native man came to North America, he began to intervene in the 
natural process occurring on the land — and of which the native peoples 
were a functional part — in ways that were at first subtle but which 
later grew to far more dramatic and far-reaching dimensions. Early 
Spanish visitors brought horses to North America — an event which 
changed a number of things, including the role native man played in 
the scheme of things. The pony ownership syndrome among certain 
western Indian tribes is a case in point. Early settlers also left their 
mark: they settled and cleared the land and began farming. Others 
moved across the country, living off the land and its wild inhabitants, 
and were themselves displaced by later arrivals, who cleared, farmed, 
fished, built towns, and did all the things that man has always done in 
his own behalf. 

These activities were, at least in the beginning, a mixed blessing. 
Opening the eastern forests increased deer herds and helped other 
wildlife. The virtual elimination of bison in the West also is a ribbon 
of a less brilliant hue on man's banner. Whatever the moral or 
philosophical merits or demerits of man's efforts over the past four 
centuries, he has moved into and altered fish and wildlife habitat — 
and continues to do so at a frightening rate and in ways that eclipse 
his best efforts in the past. 

This gloomy recitation sounds like a prediction that things are bad 
and will not get better. Not so, really. Please remember that man, 
the thinking, perceptive, rational animal, has done this. It is possible. 
then, that man can work to overcome and ameliorate his deleterious 
intervention in the natural processes. In short, things can be changed. 

Two things are important to keep in mind. First of all, man. having 
once intervened in the processes, must continue to be a part of those 
same processes he has interrupted. It is not possible, now, for him 
merely to step aside and let nature take its course. 

We intervene in the processes which govern living natural resources 
in many ways, all perhaps under the umbrella of the term "manage- 
ment." We manage land, water, forests, crops, soil, fish, and wildlife. 
Management — and hopefully in the most positive sense — must be 
continued. There is no alternative to this. This is a responsibility 
we cannot shirk ; indeed, it is one to which we must address more 
of our skills, time, and money. We cannot, if we have one scintilla 
of recognition of our moral responsibility — let alone our own self- 
interest — avoid contributing our best intelligence and energies to this 

I trust we can all agree that man — and especially we, as managers 
and stewards of the resources entrusted to us by the public, or our 
stockholders — must continue to exert influence over the natural proc- 
esses into which we long ago thrust ourselves. Given that premise, 
then I think I can be reassuring on the point that man need not stop 
his world, forswear progress and personal and societal improvement, 


or sacrifice all he has gained in order to accomplish right and proper 
things for fish and wildlife. 

It is possible to mix technology and wildlife; it is possible to im- 
prove our collective and individual lifestyles — worldwide — and still 
have fish and wildlife and their habitats. Again, I must emphasize 
that we cannot have all things in unlimited abundance. There must 
he an acceptance of the idea of the inevitability of "trade-offs" — to 
use that awful term — to accomplish the things we want and must 
do. We must accept the fact that some sacrifice in the form of added 
expense, restriction of use, limitation of opportunity, or freedom of 
action is necessary in order to have the best of all possible worlds 
we so fervently seek. 

I'm convinced that we can have coal extraction and wildlife in 
wildlands habitat. I believe we can have Alaska oil and gas, and 
caribou and bear and waterfowl. I think we can enjoy controlled 
"progress" without sacrificing fish and wildlife. Let's face it. Fish 
and wildlife and their habitats depend on us ; they are at our mercy. 
A man pitted against a grizzly bear is likely to mean a period of 
extreme trauma for the man; a grizzly bear pitted against men and 
their works is no contest at all. 

What is it we must do? There is a lengthy litany of "things to do," 
like making sure we don't drain and fill wetlands unnecessarily, or 
that we don't dam and channel, and construct with prodigality. We 
can assure that the forests contain trees for eagles and bears as well 
as saw-timber. We can control the kinds and amounts of chemicals 
and nutrients that flush into the streams and lakes of the country, 
and we can pay attention to erosion problems, which, unlike those of 
the "dust bowl" days, tend to be derived from road construction, 
housing and industrial development. These activities contribute 
immensely to silting of streams and the clogging of lakes, marshes, 
and estuaries. 

The ameliorative actions I have mentioned are effective, important, 
and necessary. But they do not really treat any more than the symp- 
tom. What we really need, in my view, is the development of a higher 
level of environmental consciousness, an understanding in each of us 
of the consequences of our collective actions. Let's call it a need for 
an environmental ethic. This ethic must be born of an understanding 
of what's at stake for all of us, a comprehension of how natural 
processes work, and how man and his actions are inextricably en- 
twined in the whole. This is not to say that every citizen should 
become a competent ecologist; this is neither practical nor desirable. 
I do suggest that as a Xation we must become informed and energetic 
participants in our environmental affairs, aware, for example, that 
our decisions could result in the demise of a whole species of animal 
or plant life somewhere; or, finally, that we do, in fact, owe our 
children and their children an opportunity to enjoy the bounties of 
nature we ourselves have too long taken for granted. Like many ideas, 
this one is easier to talk about than it is to make happen, but I feel 
convinced that we must create a pervasive and basic environmental 
conscience that will lead the Nation, and especially stewardsof its 
resources, down the proper paths. This must be the solid underpinning 
of our endeavors to harmonize man and nature. Otherwise all the 
lesser things we try to do will be to no avail. 


In closing let me quote again from John Donne. Among his many 
pithy statements is this one : "I observe the physician with the same 
diligence as he the disease." 

Let's hope that the care ministered to the resources entrusted to us 
as managers results in a long and healthy life for the environment — 
both for man and other living things of the earth. 

If we can do this then perhaps posterity, in scrutinizing the "dili- 
gence" of our efforts after our passing, need not indict us for mal- 
practice in the treatment of their heritage. 



[By George D. Davis, Director of Planning. Adirondack Park Agency, New York] 

Despite the title o.f this paper. I cannot force myself to spend fifteen 
or twenty minutes detailing to this distinguished group rayraid sta- 
tistics reflecting the importance of outdoor recreation to the American 
people. We have all heard those dozens of times. Rather, I will sug- 
gest there is a unifying theme that ties the recreational, park and wild- 
erness needs of our people together. I suggest that this theme is a 
quality environment with particular emphasis on its visual qualities. 

The seeker of recreational, park or wilderness experiences is most 
often an individual or a small group of individuals searching for a 
setting that is aesthetically more pleasing than, or contrasts pleasura- 
bly with, the setting in which they live most of their lives. 

I often wonder if we, in natural resource management fields, are 
able to recognize what it is that the typical office employee, assembly 
line worker or inner-city dweller so desperately seeks when given an 
opportunity to visit open space areas. Too often the resource manager 
takes his natural environment for granted. He just does not fully 
appreciate it. Then, as he works his way up the echelons of a company 
oi- government agency, his decision making is based on what he saw 
of the land. Frequently what the natural resource manager saw is not 
what the recerational visitor sees. I am appalled at the number of us 
who claim to be professional resource managers and understand the 
inner-relationships of a biological community yet never stop to notice 
a chestnut-sidecl warbler. Or who take for granted the incredible ex- 
perience — in today's polluted world — of stooping over a small stream 
and scooping out a drink of crystal clear water. 

If we are to successfully manage land, whether public or private, 
we must learn not only biological and physical resource considera- 
tions: we must begin to appreciate what land means to others in our 
society as a scenic backdrop to their recreational experience. 

It strikes me that, no matter what our individual role in land 
management may be, we must recognize land as a resource necessary 
to all the people of this world; regardless of fee title ownership at 
any given moment in time. 

Land use planning and regulation in rural areas is unquestionably 
on the upswing. Such land use planning is based more and more on 
the entire land resource rather than specific, economically attractive, 
land use options. Less emphasis is being given to merely differentiating 
types of hind uses to provide for neighborhood and business settings 
as has been the past history of much of our urban and suburban 
planning. As we make this transition from planning and regulating the 



uses of land in predominantly developed areas to planning and regu- 
lating- land use in sparsely developed areas we must base our decision 
making on the future land patterns we wish to evolve. The patterns 
of land use that we develop in rural areas — those natural open areas 
that remain to us — are going to influence the quality of life for genera- 
tions to come. A quality setting cannot but enhance both our ability 
and our desire to tackle other problems that face us as a society. 

Anyone with an ounce of sense would probably stop after the pre- 
ceeding generalities. One seldom gets in trouble when speaking in 
generalities. Nevertheless, I would like to describe how one section of 
our country took some very significant steps to protect the quality of 
natural rural environment while still providing for both use and pres- 
ervation of the resources. Equally important to the use of the resources, 
steps were also taken to provide for human use and habitation in a 
quality environment. I hope this case book example will show that 
both human use and resource conservation of our natural resources do 
not have to be incompatible. 

In northern New York State there is a six million acre landscape 
designated as the Adirondack Park. This park is composed primarily 
of rolling and mountainous forest-covered terrain interspersed with 
thousands of lakes, ponds, and wetlands. Although the area was desig- 
nated as a Park in 1892, it is not a Park as most Americans understand 
the term. In many respects it more closely resembles some European 
Parks because 60% of the Adirondack Park is privately owend. The 
remaining 40% is owned by the State of New York. One hundred and 
twenty-three thousand people reside in this Park. Another one hundred 
thousand are seasonal camp owners in the Park. The transient visitors 
to the Park number in the millions each year. Still the Adirondack 
Park has been and continues to be known as a relatively unspoiled 
landscape. This is not to say that much of the land is not used. A mil- 
lion acres of the private land is owned by several large paper com- 
panies and forest management practices on much of this land are inten- 
sive. In contrast, the land owned by the State must be forever kept as 
wild forest with no timber sold, removed or destroyed. The apparent 
compatibility over the past eighty years of private lands interspersed 
with public lands never ceases to amaze land managers elsewhere in the 
country. It is inconceivable to many that strict preservationists and 
resource utilizing companies share an area in which both find their 
objectives compatible as neighbors and both defend each others mo- 
tives and land uses within this Park. It is rather refreshing that such 
diverse interest groups in the Adirondacks recognize and accept such 
a variety of legitimate land uses. 

Following an intensive State-sponsored study of the Adirondack 
region, the New York State Legislature, at the urging of then Gov- 
ernor Nelson A. Rockefeller, created the Adirondack Park Agency to 
plan and regulate the use of both public and private land within the 
Park. The basic purpose behind the creation of this Agencv was to 
provide a mechanism by which the recreational needs of some 55 
million people living within a day's drive of the Park could be met. 
while protecting the private property rights and enhancing the eco- 
nomic potential of this generally impoverished area. The legislation 
made it clear, however, that the basic goal of the Agency must be to 
protect and enhance the natural landscape of the Park. The Adiron- 


dack Park has become a laboratory, a testing ground, to see if it is pos- 
sible to preserve a quality environment and still use it. The size and 
diversity of the area made it possible to consider a wide range of uses 
and intensities of use. 

The first step in the program was to evaluate the 2.3 million acres 
of State lands in the Park. There was little question that the people 
of Xew York State, living by and large in urban areas, wanted to 
preserve the "forever wild" State lands rather than adopt conserva- 
tion programs allowing more utilitarian uses of their land. The Agency 
felt that in this East Coast setting this was a valid desire and strongly 
supported the forever wild philosophy on State lands. Thus, the plan 
for State lands suggested no change in the Xew York State Constitu- 
tion provision that reads : 

The lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest 
preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They 
shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public 
or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed. 

However, the Agency recognized that this provision did not neces- 
sarily equate with wilderness. The Agency felt that wilderness per se 
would be a valid use for those lands owned by the State where a psy- 
chological wilderness setting either existed or could be easily re- 
created. The Agency designated fifteen areas, totaling approximately 
one million acres, as "wilderness'' where no motorized equipment 
vehicles or aircraft would be used by either the general public or ad- 
ministrative agencies. Another few thousand acres were designated 
"primitive'' where wilderness standards would be followed but where 
it would take some years to recreate wilderness. A third classification 
of "canoe area" was designated for an area of 54 lakes and ponds 
ideally suited for the canoeist who wants to get away from motorboat 
traffic. A small acreage was designated to encompass intensive use 
areas such as public campgrounds and two existing ski areas that 
had been provided for by a constitutional amendment. Finally, the 
remaining one million acres of State land was designated as wild 
forest. Here the constraints of the State Constitution would apply 
with emphasis on the less fragile land placed on interpretive trails, 
snowmobiling, group camping, group trail rides, and similar recrea- 
tional pursuits. 

The plan for the use of State lands was not particularly contro- 
versial. It was adopted by Governor Rockefeller as State policy in 

At this time the Agency focused its attention on the 3.7 million 
acres of private lands within the Park. The Agency identified and 
classified the existing communities as "hamlets." Future development 
controls within these areas would be almost entirely at the discretion 
of the local units of government. Next the Agency identified existing 
"industrial use areas" and so classified them. As a third step, the 
Agency identified existing residential areas and areas adjacent to ham- 
lets where future residential growth would logically occur. These areas 
were classified as "moderate intensity use." Here the Agency suggested 
that the land should be developed for residential uses at an average 
density of no more than one house per one and a quarter acres. A fourth 
classification identified "low intensity use" areas where the natural 
resources were amenable to housing development and other construe- 


tion activities so long as its intensity did not exceed approximately 
one building for each three and a quarter acres of land. 

The remaining 87% of the private land, well over 3 million acres, 
was land that the Agency felt could not withstand intensive develop- 
ment because of natural resource considerations or because this land 
was essential to maintain the open space character of the Park. This 
land was divided into two categories. The first category, "rural use'', 
could withstand some limited development. In this category, the 
Agency suggested limiting development to a maximum of one principal 
building per eight and a half acres. This category occupied 34% of 
the private land in the Park. The final category developed was "re- 
source management" covering 53%, or approximately two million 
acres, of the private land in the Park. This was the land the Agency 
felt was absolutely vital to the Park's open space character. On this 
land occasional buildings, not to exceed one for every forty-three acres, 
would be allowed. The primary uses of this land would have to be 
natural resource oriented, most often forest management although 
some agricultural land is also involved. 

This plan developed by the Agency was adopted by the New York 
State Legislature and signed into Law by Governor Rockefeller. 

Any of you familiar with traditional zoning probably find this 
idea, which boils down to forty-three acre zoning, somewhat revolu- 
tionary. Yet, if we stick to our traditional approach, that one or two 
acre zoning is about as far as we can go, I find little hope for protecting 
landscapes that our children will want to live or recreate in. Some- 
thing revolutionary had to be done and New York, under the innova- 
tive and vigorous leadership of Nelson A. Rockefeller, did it. The 
program was developed after careful consideration of all physical, bio- 
logical, and social resources and not arbitrarily. It provides for exten- 
sive development in the Adirondack Park but it channels such future 
development to those lands most amenable to development from re- 
source, aesthetic, and social viewpoints. 

The plan has been in effect for two years, and it has certainly not 
been an easy two years. There is a great deal of public education 
needed to further our program. Equally important we have a great 
deal to learn from the landowners and the local units of government 
involved. Needless to say, we have found ourselves in court a good 
deal of the time. Right now there are twenty cases pending, most of 
them aimed at constitutional issues such as whether forty-three acre 
zoning constitutes a taking of land. 

We are very optimistic about the outcome of these cases. If we did 
our homework properly in developing our plan, the law adopting the 
Land Use and Development Plan will be upheld in the court. To date 
there have been two decisions handed down by the courts, both favor- 
able. Perhaps the most important ruled that a decision of the Agency 
based entirely on aesthetics was a legitimate exercise of their police 

It will be at least ten years before the success or failure of the Adi- 
rondack program is known. I feel there are at least two elements 
missing in the program that should be corrected. First, some rela- 
tively minor land uses are presently not reviewable by the Agency if 
they meet the density guidelines. Still, a trailer here, a sas station 
there, a house here, or a barn there can eventually nickel and dime the 

67-054—76 8 


visual amenities of the Park to death. The second element that has to 
be faced is not unique to the Adirondack Park. It is equitable real 
property taxation. If Ave desire to promote development in certain 
areas and severely restrict development to protect visual and resource 
amenities elsewhere, we must squarely face the tax problem. AVe must 
amend our existing real property tax laws so they promote, rather than 
discourage, such land use policies. 

Assuming we can remain flexible enough to correct inequities. I am 
confident that Xew York State will have provided in the Adirondack 
Park, a casebook example of how today's and tomorrow's pressures 
on the land can be addressed. The Adirondack example Avill prove 
that it is possible to provide a quality environment for all of us to live 
in or at least visit. 


[By R. M. Nonnemacher, International Paper Company, Mobile, Alabama] 

It is very appropriate, and significant, that the American Forestry 
Association is celebrating its centennial year during the period our 
nation is conducting its bicentennial celebration. Added emphasis is 
given to our meeting this year in that this is also the occasion for the 
concurrent Sixth American Forestry Congress. 

The early recognition of the importance to our country of discuss- 
ing and formulating sound forestry programs is a high tribute to the 
100 years the American Forestry Association has been so active. Of 
added importance to the policies for which the Association stands is 
that it represents a broad cross section of all individuals and groups 
who have an interest in trees. 

The program reflects this cross section of interests in our nation's 
forests. I think it is appropriate that this general session be devoted 
to taking a look at our present forest resource situation — where we 
stand from the standpoint of federal lands, state and private non- 
industrial lands and those lands owned by the various forest indus- 
tries. These dicussions will then be looked at in view of supplying the 
needs for a population of 300 million people. 

Before getting into the specifics of my assigned subject, one of three 
reports you are to hear on land stewardship. I would like to relate 
a parable. The one who is generally regarded as a Master Teacher — - 
the greatest who ever lived — found the use of parables an erfeeth^e 
way of getting across his point. Therefore. I'm sure you will under- 
stand my use of a parable that goes something like this: 

Once upon a time there was a football coach who had three players 
of great capability. The first was a running back with great potential ; 
lie was unusually strong and quick and had all the moves of an O. J. 
Simpson. One back of his ability could all but carry his team to a 
successful season. However, the coach had one problem with his great 
prospect: The player didn't realize how good he really could be and, 
therefore, he never bothered to train. Consequently, he was in such 
poor condition that his stamina and coordination were so poor the 
coach could use him only sparingly and with little success. 

There was a second outstanding back on this same team. He was a 
quarterback who could pass like Joe Namath and scramble like Roger 
Staubach. He, too. could all but insure a successful season except for 
one problem : A well-meaning doctor Avould not permit him to run at 
full speed and insisted on his using a passing motion that gave his 
passes all the zip of a midget leaguer. 

This same coach had another great running back. This third back, 
although light, had great speed and was to his coach what Mercury 



Morris was to Larry Csonka and the great Glenn Davis was to Doc 
Blanchard on the powerful Army team of several decades ago. This 
back would give Ms coach all he had and, because the other two 
backs did not carry their share of the load, the coach put him in 
every game and kept him going as long as he could. Needless to say r 
his small stature and the frequent rushes through the line soon wore 
him down and he couldn't really do as well on wide runs and down- 
field pass receptions which should have been his specialties. 

The coach realized that if he could get his first back inspired and 
the second back freed from his well-meaning doctor's restrictions, 
his would be a team with the greatest offensive capabilities in the his- 
tory of football. Did the coach ever attain his team's great potential I 
No, because he was a college coach and time ran out on him. 

Have you seen the parallel of this parable? If not, by taking some 
liberties for purposes of simplification, let me suggest that the college 
coach is the United States of America and his football team is the 
wood fiber requirements of our generation. The player who could 
not be used to his full potential is privately owned timberlands which 
are not being developed for various reasons, even though proper use 
would permit them to exceed industry-owned lands. 

The player whose capabilities were not realized because of a good- 
intentioned but shortsighted doctor is, of course, National Forest 
timberlands. And, finally, the over- worked player is industry-owned 
lands which, for the most part, are reasonably productive but are being 
forced to carry more than their fair share of the fiber load. 

As I discuss my assigned subject, perhaps this parable will help put 
in perspective the load our nation has placed on industry-owned 
forest lands. 

It is a distinct pleasure for me to have been asked to discuss the 
current industrial forest resource situation. I will be talking about 
the total nationwide picture for all forest industries — pulp and paper, 
lumber, plywood, poles and piling, et cetera. Since my 30-year career 
with International Paper Company has been spent in our Southern 
Kraft Division, I hope you will forgive me if I occasionally seem to 
place undue emphasis on the Southern forest resource. Perhaps an- 
other reason for this is that our region has often been referred to 
as "the nation's wood basket," Dependence on the South to grow even 
greater tree crops is evidenced by the Third Forest report and recom- 
mended activities to boost timber production. 

In discussing the present industrial resource situation, I will be 
using data from the 1973 U.S. Forest Service publication, "The Out- 
look For Timber In The United States." 

This publication, and earlier versions, are considered to be the 
"bible" of forest statistics, so I am sure all of us discussing the 
resource situation will be using the same basic data. 

Since we have an audience today of such varied backgrounds, I 
hope to keep my discussion understandable and in perspective, avoid- 
ing technical terms professional foresters so often use. Also. I hope 
you will not get lost in numbers. Thev are only important to give a 
clear visual impression of the relativity of the three classes of land 
we are discussing. 

One point I would like to emphasize is that while I will be reviewing 
the resource situation from the standpoint of timber production only, 


I do recognize the many other resources our forests provide — wildlife, 
recreation, watershed protection, and others. 

Now, let's look at the forest resource on lands owned by the wood- 
using industries. Of the 754 million acres of forest land in the United 
States, 500 million acres are classified as commercial forests. This is 
not "commercially owned" forest acres, but is defined as follows — 
••forest land which is producing or is capable of producing crops of 
industrial wood and not withdrawn from timber utilization by statute 
or administrative regulation." I will be discussing industry's part in 
the ownership and management of this 500 million acre "forest." 

For convenience in collecting statistics, the forest regions in the 
United States are divided into four regions — North, South, Kocky 
Mountains and Pacific Coast, Here we see the amount of commercial 
forest land in each region. 

Nearly three-fourths is in the eastern half of the United States, 
equally divided between the North and South. The remaining one- 
fourth is in the West, about equally distributed between the Rocky 
Mountains and the Pacific Coast section. 

Four major types of ownership are recognized — National Forests, 
other public, forest industry and other private, which includes lands 
owned by farmers and other private owners. My discussion will per- 
tain to the 14 per cent of the 500 million acres of commercial forest 
land owned by industry. This amounts to 67^3 million acres nation- 
wide. This includes the nation's most productive timber growing 

About 52 per cent of these lands are in the South and 27 per cent 
in the North. Most of the balance is located on the Pacific Coast. In- 
dustrial ownership increased by 13 per cent, or about 8 million acres 
between 1952 and 1970, with much of this acreage being added in the 
South. A substantial portion was purchased from farmers and mis- 
cellaneous private owners. 

It is interesting to note that industrial ownership in the North 
and South is by companies predominantly oriented towards the pro- 
duction of pulp and paper, whereas in the Rocky Mountain and West 
Coast areas the companies are predominantly lumber-oriented com- 
panies. However, in recent years the larger pulp and paper companies 
operating in the South have become more totally product-oriented. 

International Paper Company, for example, has rapidly expanded 
in the last few years in production of lumber, plywood, and pressure 
treated wood products to become a totally integrated forest products 

I would like to point out here that in addition to industry's manage- 
ment of their own lands, about nine million acres in non-industrial 
ownerships were managed by the forest industries through leasing 
and long term cutting contracts. 

Now, let's see what kind of an inventory we have on the forest lands 
owned by the wood-using industries. Of a total growing stock of about 
715 billion cubic feet of sound wood in 1970, about two-thirds was in 
softwoods (pine and other conifers) and about one-third in hard- 
woods. Forest industry lands accounted for 17 per cent of the softwood 
inventory and 12 per cent of the hardwood inventory. The greatest 
inventory of softwoods, by far, is on the National Forests, while other 
private ownerships account for the largest inventory of hardwoods 
(71 per cent). 


It is interesting to note that although most of the Southern pine 
timber in 1970 was relatively small, the South nevertheless was the 
source of about a quarter of the softwood lumber and plywood, and 
three-fourths of the softwood pulpwood produced in 1970. 

Another interesting point in this data is that the National Forests, 
with only 18 per cent of the commercial forest area, contain nearly 
half (46 per cent) of the softwood inventory. 

I think this indicates that the National Forest cutting budgets have 
to be increased to meet the future timber needs of our nation. The 
alternative is higher and higher prices for the available private tim- 
ber — ultimately pricing lumber beyond the reach of the average 

Again, if we are going to have enough timber in the future, the 
other private ownerships, accounting for 59 per cent of our forest 
acres with only 26 per cent of the softwood inventory, must also in- 
crease their productivity. 

Let's now take a closer look at the growing stock we have on 
industry-owned lands by regions. ''Growing stock'' is defined as 
merchantable trees five inches and larger, diameter measured at breast 
height. Here we see that about 17 per cent of the nation's softwood 
volume and about 12 per cent of the hardwood volume is on industrial 
ownerships. The largest softwood inventory, about one-half, is on 
the Pacific Coast, while the North and South contain 85 per cent of 
the hardwoods. 

That's the total inventory, so let's see where we stand on total saw- 
timber volume. Industry accounts for 17 per cent of the softwood 
inventory, with about 61 per cent of this volume on the Pacific Coast 
and 25 per cent in the South. 

A contrast in the softwood sawtimber volume on industrial versus 
other private holdings is that, while the volumes were nearly equal, 
there is nearly four times the acreage in other private ownerships. 

Again, this indicates the need to increase the productivity on other 
private ownerships. 

In the South, for example, we are making progress in increasing the. 
forest productivity on private ownerships through management assist- 
ance programs available from many companies. At International 
Paper Company we call our landowner assistance program LAP. To 
date a total of 953 owners representing 387,000 acres of forest lands 
have entered into a management agreement in our nine-state Southern 
Kraft Division operating area.. Our goal is to have a minimum of one 
million acres under these agreements by 1980. 

Focusing the picture on industry sawtimber volume by regions, the 
Pacific Coast industrial lands contain 61 per cent of the total soft- 
woods while one-half of the hardwood sawtimber is in the South. 

Next, let's examine where industry stands on the cubic feet of grow- 
ing stock per acre. We are about average with 1,480 cubic feet/acre — 
the National Forests having the highest volume and other private the 

When we look at industry stocking by regions, we see that the Pa- 
cific Coast has the highest, while it is lowest in the South. This is not 
surprising wdien you consider the high rate of harvesting in the South. 
This does not mean these harvested areas are not growing trees. There 
is a considerable acreage stocked with pre-merchantable trees which 
do not show up in growing stock inventory at this time. 


When we look at the average volume per acre in all ownerships, it is 
not surprising that the highest figure is on the National Forests, while 
the lowest is on Other Private. Volume on industry-owned lands is 
about average. 

By regions, the volume per acre on industry lands is naturally high- 
est on the Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountain areas, while the North 
and South have a much lower volume per acre. 

I think this data is of key importance in considering the resource 
on industry lands. The net annual growth per acre of softwoods is 
highest by far than any other class of ownership. The primary reason 
for this is that the slower growing, older timber has been harvested 
and replaced by faster growing, vigorous young stands. In fact, with 
the timber requirements facing this nation, we need to emphasize rate 
of growth instead of inventory. We have long been unduly enamored 
with "inventory." 

Here you can see the net annual growth per acre on industry lands 
by regions. 

This data illustrates the urgent need for more intensive forest man- 
agement on all ownerships which, taken collectively, are growing at 
about 50 per cent of the potential rate per acre. 

When we examine this potential growth more closely, we find that 
on industry lands we have the potential to increase the net growth per 
acre by nearly 60 percent for the nation as a whole from the current 
average of 52 cubic feet per acre to 83 cubic feet per acre. 

The North, which has the lowest current average, has the highest 
growth potential. The increase in the South is estimated to be moder- 
ate, since the current growth average is already high. On given acre- 
age, it is estimated that industry can even exceed the estimated poten- 
tial using modern forestry techniques. 

Industry lands, in all regions in the country, have a higher current 
growth rate than any ownership category. Intensive work in genetics, 
cultivation, drainage and fertilization is bringing results nnthought of 
30 years ago. 

We have looked at forest inventory, growing stock and potential 
growth. Now, let's see how growth versus cut compare. Here we see 
that the forest industry leads other ownerships both in the growth 
and cutting of trees per acre. However, the removals exceed the growth 
on industry lands. 

When we look at the growth and cut by region on industry lands, we 
find the cutting exceeds growth by a considerable margin in the Pa- 
cific and Rocky Mountain regions, while we have a favorable balance 
of growth over cutting in the Northern and Southern regions. 

For hardwoods, there is a favorable balance of growt Inversus drain, 
with Other Private having the most favorable ratio. Growth and re- 
moval is about average on industry lands. 

By region, both growth and removal is highest in the North and 
South, with the industry ownership showing more hardwoods being 
grown than being cut. 

I hope this mass of data hasn't confused you. While vou won't re- 
member the numbers, the visuals mav have helped to brino- into foeus 
the resource situation on forest industry lands, which account for 
about 14 per cent of the commercial forests in the United States. These 


industrial ownerships are particularly important in the South and 
the Pacific and Bocky Mountain regions. 

From this discussion, there are several key points to remember : 

1. The softwood timber stands on industry lands are about 
average in volume, but their growth rates per acre are the highest 
of any major ownership. 

2. The harvest per acre in relation to the volume of standing 
timber, is by far the highest' of any major ownership — more than 
double the average rate for all forests. 

3. Industry lands include some of the most productive forest 
land, the most intensively managed, and the highest output per 
acre and per unit of standing timber, and probably per dollar in- 
vestment, of the four ownership classes. 

4. Slow growing, mature timber is being removed from industry 
lands and being replaced with vigorous, young timber. 

I am proud of the contribution the forest products industry is mak- 
ing in supplying the many useful products we use every day. I am 
proud of the stewardship we are entrusted with in the management 
of our forest lands. I am also proud of the assistance we in industry 
are giving to private landowners in improving the productivity of 
their forest lands. We have a common platform in the American 
Forestry Association to develop sound, practical programs for all 
interests in forestry to assure adequate proper management of our 
forests for all uses. 

Going back to the parable which I used earlier, I feel that all of us 
are the alumni who both want to and need to help the coach get full 
potential from all his players. However, like the coach, unless we really 
get together and get with it, our time may run out, forcing this coun- 
try to reduce its use of fiber or resorting to imports which will have 
a highly undesirable effect on our balance of trade. 


[By Ruth C. Clusen, President, League of Women Voters of the United States] 

For some 24 hours, delegates to this Sixth American Forest Con- 
gress have been hearing from an imposing array of policy-makers, 
legislators, and professional conservationists about the present re- 
source situation and the need to meet the requirements of a wide range 
of needs and uses. To address you with that extra word "together" 
added to the theme of "Moving Ahead" is indeed a substantial chal- 
lenge. In my first contact with Bill Towell, I demurred somewhat 
saying that the League of Women Voters, while having an active pro- 
gram in land use planning, has not focused on forestry issues with 
great specificity. But perhaps this is an advantage bringing as we do a 
broad perspective and a concern for the public interest to this forum. 

It would, however, be foolhardy of me to stand here and propose a 
detailed well-defined plan for reconciling differences — even if I could. 
It would also be redundant for me to spend time on the rhetoric of the 
need for coming together on a policy. Therefore, I have chosen to try 
to identify the blocks which separate forest-oriented people and sug- 
gest how to arrive at a reconciliation. 

Because this is a centennial observance it is natural to look back 
with nostalgia to the little band of founding members who created the 
American Forestry Association. Moreover, nostalgia is the order of the 
day in the theater, in clothes, in historical perspective. Wherever we 
turn we are exposed to an atmosphere of wishful thinking which sug- 
gests that things were simpler, problems smaller, life better at another 
time in history. It is natural, on a centennial occasion to look back at 
that little band of founding members who, few in number though 
they were, launched this effort to preserve our national heritage by 
the creation and preservation of the national forests. What a satisfac- 
tion it must be to contemplate what a host they have become during 
the 100 years. Consider with pride how influential AFS has been in 
establishing national forests in the west and later in the east. AFS was 
a pioneer. The small charter membership had a clearly shared, well- 
defined goal. 

In 1975 you are in a sense a victim of your own great success. Now 
you deal with an embarrassment of riches, a plethora of forest lovers. 
The problem is, as you all know, that the many members of the AFS 
do not think alike. And the many other organizations interested in 
the national forests have their own goals, which differ from one group 
to another. Some organizations are purely professional, some are made 
up entirely of nonprofessionals, some, like AFA, are mixed in mem- 
bership. As the organizations embrace different views of what is good, 
desirable, possible, so within a single organization members also have 
disparate opinions. 



Nostalgically, some people yearn for a return to the early days when 
the Forest Service activities seem centered on conservation and little 
of the nation's lumber came from the national forests, when profes- 
sional foresters were in the forests more of the time, managing on the 
spot rather than at the desk. But since we can't turn back the clock, 
we can't go home again, what can we do to reconcile differences, to get 
moving ahead together? It seems to me that there is merit in trying to 
identify the blocks which prevent forest-oriented people from arriving 
at mutual solutions when they obviously support mutual goals. Some- 
times in looking with clear eyes at the trees instead of the forest it is 
possible to arrive at a plan of attack. In the course of this I am going 
to raise a series of questions which are intended to set you to thinking 
about the possibility that the various interests involved have looked 
at these matters with tunnel vision and need a broader perspective. 

Let's look at goals first. Are those who care about forests, be they 
individuals or organizations or institutions so divided over emphasis 
that reconciliation under the multiple use doctrine is no longer possi- 
ble ? Even a cursory overview of recent writings makes it clear to the 
public that there are some three different aims being pursued simul- 
taneously. Each has its vociferous advocates. Timber, mining and 
forage yield supporters find themselves pitted against recreation back- 
ers who are themselves divided into developed area group recreation 
supporters plus hunting and fishing concerns. These in turn confront 
the wilderness preservation people who want dispersed recreation and 
are concerned about habitation for non-game animals, wildlife, en- 
dangered species, diversity, and watershed protection. In other words, 
there may be a limit to the number of different aims which can be 
accommodated under the multiple use doctrine. 

Or, perhaps the question to ask, is — does money lie at the bottom of 
the separation in views ? Everyone at least gives lip service to the idea 
that programs should be well-conceived, efficiently-managed, socially 
beneficent. Are the costs too high? Will the benefits in the long run 
outrun the costs? It may be that the competition for funds for under- 
takings which each interest sees as having the A'irtues of an ideal pro- 
gram undelies the divisiveness in forestry use views. 

Or, it may be that it is a combination of the two — money and 
goals — which brings about conflict between immediate objectives and 
long range goals. This seems to me to be at least one of the very basic 
issues which must be resolved — and the public is, as usual, caught in 
the crunch. Those interested in maximizing income to the treasury 
from increased logging and those who want to maximize forest indus- 
try profits by production line logging seem oblivious to the effects on 
erosion and siltation, landslides and leaching, reforestation and recre- 
ation. Are they looking at quick benefits and forgetting the long term 
costs, forgetting that the reason for the formation of the national 
forests was to preserve their values for our descendants ? 

On the other hand, those who oppose increased production from the 
national forests seem unmindful of the fact that a country forced to 
use less lumber will require some substitute — probably metal or plas- 
tic — which will require more energy to produce and will cost more in 
environmental damage than would well-conducted cutting with less- 
ened waste in harvesting and maximum recycling of forest products. 

Another factor which seems a likely possibility in causing separa- 
tion and distrust is the rearing up of that continuous incompatibility 


between professionals and the public, with the usual inflexibility on 
both sides. 

Is the underlying issue one of professional control : "We know what 
to do ; we know what is good for you, and we are going to give it to 
you even if it isn't what you want !" And on the other hand the public's 
view : "We citizens are going to decide what we want : we are not going 
to have you technocrats decide for us. After we've made up our minds 
and expressed it through the political process, you professionals can 
use your skills to achieve the goals we, the public, have set." 

One of the problems that arises in the development of public opinion 
is the question of who is the public ? Who speaks for them ? Frequently 
professionals in a discipline (who often are too busy with their pro- 
fessions to be what I might call practicing citizens) think that fellow 
professionals operating on the state and local levels are the spokesmen 
for citizens. It is important that public opinion (whose formation no 
one really understands or can direct) and the expressions of bureauc- 
racy are clearly distinguished, one from the other. 

The process by which the public makes the value judgments is not 
a tidy, systematic, analytical one, which can be computerized and sub- 
jected to mid-term correction. But the public right to make the value 
judgments is one that is basic to our political system, inefficient though 
it may be. 

In thinking of the public's role in making the value judgments, the 
elected official's role in expressing those judgments in terms of policy 
through the political process, and the agency's role in implementing 
policy, it is important to understand where the line between goals and 
means lies. How far down the road does the political process extend? 
The United States has the multiple use doctrine, now reexpressed in 
the Forest and Kangeland Renewable Resources Act. Are these politi- 
cally derived decisions to be followed, constraining both the agencies 
that are involved in their implementation and the industries that use 
the resources with which the acts deal ? Of course, for this is the Ameri- 
can system — a government of laws, the concept to which we all sub- 
scribe. What tends to happen is an upward creeping of the means 
until they begin to modify the ends. When that happens, when its 
happening becomes visible, tumultuous days have arrived. 

Therefore we must find answers not so much to what separates as to 
how to get off dead center and accomplish some forward movement 
together. One prospect which offers some hope is for forestry people 
to work consciously to develop some measuring tools for decision- 
making. Perhaps the answ T er lies in renewed concentration on how to 
rear-h a rational decision rather than which views shall triumph. 

A great part of the appeal of the past, the spring from which this 
nostalagia we mentioned earlier arises, comes from the feeling we have 
that decisions were easier then, that what should be done was more 
obvious, that the path from where we were to where we wanted to go 
was clearer. We all know that 20th century managers have many more 
tools at their disposal than did their predecessors. Can the sophisti- 
cated analytical tools be applied to forest issues in ways that will fur- 
nish information that will help us to move ahead together? Can we 
[ret, from a rigorous application of these tools, a better understanding 
of qualitative and quantitative costs/benefits — tangible and intan- 
gible— of different means of reaching the goal of national forest 


I urge you to try, at least, to use modern methods of analysis and 
technology to seek a consensus to the problems you have been dis- 
cussing during this Congress. A starting point might well be the 
thoughtful approach of Marion Clowson in his recent book, Forests 
For Whom and For What; which deals with the basis for analysis. 

You will remember that he proposes five areas for analysis : physical 
and biological feasibility, economic efficiency, social and economic fair- 
ness, aesthetic and cultural sensibilities, and administrative practical- 
ity. And if I may simplify his conclusion beyond even his recognition, 
the application of rigorous analysis with modern tools to these five 
areas will probably show WHAT to do WHEEE rather than provide 
a single middle of the road answer that will bring us together. 

There is no single answer — no easy way — no middle road which can 
be applied to all forestry issues as they grow and change. If there 
were a simple formula, you would he together, and I would not be 
standing here saying these words. None of the issues that divide you 
is as simple as the protagonists on either side would have it seem. 
When demand and need are mentioned, for example, even the public 
knows that the response cannot be a simple one. Citizens have learned, 
in the ENERGY classroom, to ask, "Demand at what price? What 
price in dollars? What price in intangible costs?" 

Whether the root cause of what separates those who care about the 
nation's forests is any or all of those I have suggested to you : Money, 
goals, immediate objectives as long range goals, and incompatibility 
between professionals and public. 

A lack of measuring tools is really no answer to your problem of 
how to move ahead together. And so, nostalgia notwithstanding, back 
to work ! Learn more ! Ponder more ! Stop pointing the finger at those 
who think differently. Stop making pious claims based on what may 
be long chains of fact, inference, assumption. MOVING AHEAD 
TOGETHER will be realized when the value judgments and the polit- 
ical processes of policy-setting are built from stronger materials, from 
a higher quality of information. . . . which is a renewable resource 
that those of you in this room are responsible for producing. 

No single answer can ensure an ideal forest policy. Alternatives will 
always exist and each will have its advocates. The important consid- 
eration to the public is that a forest policy for the country be arrived 
at carefully, with the use of tools not available in 1875, more con- 
sciously, and by a wider range of interests than ever existed 100 years 




3 1262 09113 1150